Pages

Jump to bottom

87 comments

1 prairiefire  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:58:09pm

I was surprised to read this at FDL yesterday.

2 reine.de.tout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:03:49pm

Hey, Obdi.
I agree with you.

People want safe travel; and yet, they object to whatever it is that needs to be done to ensure safety. You can't have it both ways.

3 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:03:49pm

re: #1 prairiefire

I'm just amazed at the lack of sympathy for TSA employees. Take a look at the next ten Americans you see. Do you want to touch them?

Porno scanners. Jesus.

4 reine.de.tout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:04:38pm

re: #3 Obdicut

I'm just amazed at the lack of sympathy for TSA employees. Take a look at the next ten Americans you see. Do you want to touch them?

Porno scanners. Jesus.

Yes, that was another thought on my mind, but I wasn't gonna say it.

5 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:11:37pm

how are people being manipulated?
I don't understand your point here

6 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:18:10pm

It's anti-science to boot:

...to intimidate the rest of us into using their invasive, dangerous porno scanners...

You have to wonder how many smokers are also sitting around their basement worrying about the fabricated radiological dangers of the AIT scanners which are significantly lower than naturally occurring radiation.

There's no point in arguing the facts with them. These folks are much like the anti-vaxers regarding Thimerosal and the 911 trurthers regarding just about every other conspiracy theory under the sun.

7 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:18:33pm

re: #5 FriarsTale

You haven't noticed that suddenly, out of nowhere, TSA outrage is springing up, despite these scanners having been in operation, despite the pat-downs having occurred before? That, for example, a few of the photos used to flame the outrage turned out to be years old?

Drudge and Alex Jones purposefully have been inflating the hysteria on this one, and others, like FOX and, shamefully, Huckabee are joining in. It's ridiculous.

8 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:23:50pm

Why should I just "put up with" more aggressive search procedures than we use on the battlefield? How the hell is this really stopping anything? How is this not just TSA/Government theater to make people "think" something is being done and that they are "safe".

I don't feel any safer with these screening procedures for domestic flights, it's moronic, it's pissing people off and it's an insane waste of money. Claiming that anyone on the other side of the issue is simply being "manipulated" is inaccurate and dismissive.

Want me to feel safer? Put all this time, effort and money into ensuring that our aircraft are maintained, our pilots are rested, our air traffic controllers post are sufficiently/competently staffed and that their is enough space in a plane so I don't feel as if I'm a sardine riding in a death trap.

9 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:24:42pm

re: #6 Gus 802

It's anti-science to boot:

You have to wonder how many smokers are also sitting around their basement worrying about the fabricated radiological dangers of the AIT scanners which are significantly lower than naturally occurring radiation.

There's no point in arguing the facts with them. These folks are much like the anti-vaxers regarding Thimerosal and the 911 trurthers regarding just about every other conspiracy theory under the sun.

So why have I worn a lead vest for the last 41 years at the dentist?

10 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:25:28pm

re: #7 Obdicut

yes, I have noticed
it's internet yellow journalism, in my opinion

but

do you think it's completely a non-issue?

How about ABC, is that a good source?

11 prairiefire  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:26:35pm

re: #8 Locker

Why should I just "put up with" more aggressive search procedures than we use on the battlefield? How the hell is this really stopping anything? How is this not just TSA/Government theater to make people "think" something is being done and that they are "safe".

I don't feel any safer with these screening procedures for domestic flights, it's moronic, it's pissing people off and it's an insane waste of money. Claiming that anyone on the other side of the issue is simply being "manipulated" is inaccurate and dismissive.

Want me to feel safer? Put all this time, effort and money into ensuring that our aircraft are maintained, our pilots are rested, our air traffic controllers post are sufficiently/competently staffed and that their is enough space in a plane so I don't feel as if I'm a sardine riding in a death trap.

I think Locker's opinion shows how non partisan this issue has become. I'm still a bit surprised at the blow back, but I haven't experienced the situation first hand, as it were.

12 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:26:41pm

re: #6 Gus 802

You have to wonder how many smokers are also sitting around their basement worrying about the fabricated radiological dangers of the AIT scanners which are significantly lower than naturally occurring radiation.

I'm sitting around, smoking, wondering if I pass through the scanners enough times, will I get some cool super-mutant powers.

/I already know you don't get any powers from pat downs. Well, no "super-mutant" ones, anyway.

13 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:28:12pm

re: #9 Locker

So why have I worn a lead vest for the last 41 years at the dentist?

Because those are x-rays.

14 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:28:42pm

re: #8 Locker

Why should I just "put up with" more aggressive search procedures than we use on the battlefield? How the hell is this really stopping anything? How is this not just TSA/Government theater to make people "think" something is being done and that they are "safe".

I don't feel any safer with these screening procedures for domestic flights, it's moronic, it's pissing people off and it's an insane waste of money. Claiming that anyone on the other side of the issue is simply being "manipulated" is inaccurate and dismissive.

Want me to feel safer? Put all this time, effort and money into ensuring that our aircraft are maintained, our pilots are rested, our air traffic controllers post are sufficiently/competently staffed and that their is enough space in a plane so I don't feel as if I'm a sardine riding in a death trap.

Dental x-rays are 10 mRems of radiation. The AIT scanner is 0.01 mRem of back scatter radiation. That 1,000 times more mRems. Big difference. Might as well wear a lead vest while you're flying because you'll be exposed to cosmic radiation at cruising altitude.

15 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:29:08pm

re: #8 Locker

I don't think that they're all that effective. That's an entirely separate issue from what's going on now, though.

16 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:29:48pm

re: #13 Obdicut

Because those are x-rays.

So is an AIT scanner.

18 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:32:07pm

re: #15 Obdicut

I don't think that they're all that effective. That's an entirely separate issue from what's going on now, though.

What is going on now? That people are getting pissed off?

[Link: fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...]

Nate Silver makes a very astute observation that the public's "approval" of these methods is directly related to how often (if ever) they fly:

The ABC News poll also suggests that opposition to the measures is higher among those who fly regularly (a distinction that this blog had previously anticipated). Among Americans who fly at least once a year, 58 percent support the new x-ray scanners, versus 70 percent of Americans who fly less often than that. Support for the new pat-down procedures is at 44 percent among fliers, meanwhile, versus 52 percent among those who do not fly regularly.

In the past, even measures that have polled fairly well have nevertheless produced a material reduction in air travel. Indeed, the ABC News poll gets at this issue as well: 20 percent of respondents said that the new procedures would make them less likely to fly, versus 10 percent who said more so. Discouraging air travel could have a number of economic and safety consequences, principally because the primary substitute for air travel is automobile travel, which is considerably more dangerous over all.

Somewhat contrary to conventional wisdom, the T.S.A. has been willing to dial back or reverse new security protocols in the past...

19 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:32:12pm

re: #16 Locker

I'm sorry, you're entirely right. However, backscatter x-ray scanning works at much, much, much lower radiation levels than the ones at the dentist does.

If we really were using that much power to scan everyone, AGW would be happening next-week.

The American Radiology Association has said that the scanners aren't dangerous.

Who has said that they are, who has any credibility?

20 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:32:55pm

AIT scanner result in only 0.01 mRems.

Teach the controversy!

/

21 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:33:00pm

re: #18 Locker

Do you think that Drudge and Alex Jones running repeated stories on this and the rest of the sensationalist media picking it up isn't driving this?

22 reine.de.tout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:35:27pm

Daily radiation:

On average, Americans receive a radiation dose of about 0.62 rem (620 millirem) each year. Half of this dose comes from natural background radiation. Most of this background exposure comes from radon in the air, with smaller amounts from cosmic rays and the Earth itself. (The chart to the right shows these radiation doses in perspective.) The other half (0.31 rem or 310 mrem) comes from man-made sources of radiation, including medical, commercial, and industrial sources. In general, a yearly dose of 620 millirem from all radiation sources has not been shown to cause humans any harm.

We get about 320 mRem a year just from living in our homes and going about our daily business. That's slightly less than 1 mRem per day. A scanner gives you what, 1/100 of a typical DAILY dose?

23 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:36:25pm

If you think flying is fun now, just wait:

Why Cavity Bombs Would Make the TSA Irrelevant

Let's assume for a second that the TSA one day actually buys a machine that can detect "abdominally concealed explosives." How would it be deployed? Would it be used for primary screening, or secondary screening? And what the hell would happen when TSA officers detect an abdominal abnormality? Do we really pay TSA officers enough for this sort of work? My assumption is that the cavity bomber detonates himself upon discovery, which leads, of course, to another incessantly-repeated Goldblog point: Terrorists do not need to hijack a plane, or blow one up in mid-air, to wreak havoc on civilian air travel and the American economy: All a terrorist needs to do to bring the American transportation system to a catastrophic halt is to detonate a bomb while waiting on a TSA line. No need to conceal such a bomb in your rectum, of course -- you could join the pre-screened line with a bomb in your knapsack. Or in a shopping bag.

Where does all this lead? Back to the observation -- again, one made incessantly in this space -- that by the time a terrorist conspiracy matures to the point that it is ready for execution, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop it. If a cavity bomber reaches the airport without detection, he will have a high-likelihood of success in carrying out his mission. Which means, obviously, that much of the money we spend on airport security could be better spent on intelligence collection, and on the breaking up of terror cells overseas.

Which is exactly what I've been saying.

24 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:42:26pm

re: #21 Obdicut

Do you think that Drudge and Alex Jones running repeated stories on this and the rest of the sensationalist media picking it up isn't driving this?

Can't really comment as I don't read, listen to or pay attention to a word from either one of those bucket heads. It's hard to communicate my position lately as I've had these feelings for the better part of a year.

I have to admit though, I didn't really parse (my mistake) that your "issue" is with inflammatory rhetoric as opposed to a defense of the TSA and it's policies. Sorry man.

25 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:48:40pm

re: #24 Locker

No problem. I am happy to 'defend' the TSA in so far as I don't feel that being a TSA screener is a good job in any way. I'm most concerned at the unscientific attack on the scanners as spewing radiation everywhere. Second to that, I'm annoyed that people can get worked up into a froth overnight about an issue.

The animus of this is being directed in two areas: against Obama, who is not in any way the architect of this policy, and the TSA employees, who are low-level schlubs with a high minority representation. I don't like either of those things.

I don't think that screening is very effective. It might be. I don't know. I'm not an expert. But as negativ pointed out, if a terrorist wants to kill a lot of people, a TSA line is the perfect place to do it.

26 Bronco Bama FTW  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:50:07pm

re: #25 Obdicut

Well I'm with you there. It's definitely not about Obama and the TSA bottom rung folks are just doing what they were hired to do.

27 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:05:05pm

Why the infatuation with airports anyway? Why not a Wal Mart checkout isle on Black Friday?

28 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:08:31pm

re: #27 Conservative Moonbat

Why the infatuation with airports anyway? Why not a Wal Mart checkout isle on Black Friday?

You wanna pat those people down? Be my guest.
:P

29 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:30:48pm

I don't have a problem with the scanners. If I flew every week I probably would.

The patdowns, gate rape, whatever you want to call it are totally obscene however. I'd rather be blown to bits by a terrorist a million times than live in a police state where I can have my genitals groped by a federal employee with no due process.

30 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:35:40pm

re: #29 Conservative Moonbat

Well, that's the state that you live in right now.

Do you honestly think the TSA agent is getting a kick out of groping you?

31 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:39:38pm

That's not the issue. The issue is what gives them the constitutional right to do so? It's un-American, an invasive violation of civil liberties, and will likely be found unconstitutional on 4th amendment grounds when legal challenges hit the courts.

32 Jeff In Ohio  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:39:58pm

Jesus, what a bunch of nancys. I care about a TSA employe brushing my nutsack about as much as the middle aged Indian woman who sticks her cold index finger up my ass once a year.
Really, get a fucking grip.

33 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:41:14pm

re: #32 Jeff In Ohio

Jesus, what a bunch of nancys. I care about a TSA employe brushing my nutsack about as much as the middle aged Indian woman who sticks her cold index finger up my ass once a year.
Really, get a fucking grip.

Do you care about your constitutional rights being violated?

34 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:41:31pm

re: #31 Conservative Moonbat

It's not considered an unreasonable search and seizure by the courts, so it's considered constitutional.

I think it's already gone to the courts several times. i could be wrong, of course.

Do you think searching the luggage is likewise constitutionally prohibited?

35 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:43:57pm

re: #34 Obdicut

It's not considered an unreasonable search and seizure by the courts, so it's considered constitutional.

I think it's already gone to the courts several times. i could be wrong, of course.

Do you think searching the luggage is likewise constitutionally prohibited?

No, but that's reasonable and non-invasive. I mean where do we draw the line? Would it OK for them to ask us to do a drop and cough and shine a light up our assholes?

36 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:45:58pm

re: #35 Conservative Moonbat

What standard are you using for 'reasonable'?

37 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:46:14pm

Other more invasive searches have be OKed, but they have to be able to show just cause. Subjecting everybody to it without cause is a violation of due process.

38 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:49:46pm

re: #36 Obdicut

What standard are you using for 'reasonable'?

Common sense. Causes no distress to the individual and has a fair chance of finding contraband. Part of those searches are also about looking for narcotics and other items that are banned to import. I'm not going to try to carry joint on a plane behind my nutsack.

39 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:51:50pm

re: #32 Jeff In Ohio

I care about a TSA employe brushing my nutsack about as much as the middle aged Indian woman who sticks her cold index finger up my ass once a year.

If they hired middle-aged Indian women for the TSA I doubt there would be as much discord.
Image: juhi-chawla01.jpg

40 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:52:47pm

re: #37 Conservative Moonbat

Other more invasive searches have be OKed, but they have to be able to show just cause. Subjecting everybody to it without cause is a violation of due process.

Everybody has to be subjected to a metal detector no? If I refuse to go through the metal detector then I would technically be subjected to a more invasive search. And this would be without any just cause.

41 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:53:08pm

Complyyy With Me

42 Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:57:36pm

re: #38 Conservative Moonbat

I'm sorry, but 'common sense' is a non-answer. You mean that you're using your own subjective idea of what 'reasonable' is.

43 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:57:41pm

re: #40 Gus 802

Everybody has to be subjected to a metal detector no? If I refuse to go through the metal detector then I would technically be subjected to a more invasive search. And this would be without any just cause.

On what planet is a metal detector more invasive than groping your genitalia? A strip search would be less invasive because at least then there would be no physical contact.

44 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:00:00pm

re: #41 negativ

I dinged down Iowahawk (and his stupid video) not you.

45 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:00:14pm

re: #43 Conservative Moonbat

On what planet is a metal detector more invasive than groping your genitalia? A strip search would be less invasive because at least then there would be no physical contact.

But if you refused to go through a metal detector then you would have to be searched. Say if we replaced the anti-AIT scanner neo-Luddism with a metal detector.

46 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:02:49pm

re: #45 Gus 802

But if you refused to go through a metal detector then you would have to be searched. Say if we replaced the anti-AIT scanner neo-Luddism with a metal detector.

Not everyone who get the gate rape treatment gets it because they refuse to go through the scanner. Some get it because they can't get a clear shot of them on the scanner or because they have had medical procedures which make the scanner useless.

47 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:03:42pm

re: #46 Conservative Moonbat

Not everyone who get the gate rape treatment gets it because they refuse to go through the scanner. Some get it because they can't get a clear shot of them on the scanner or because they have had medical procedures which make the scanner useless.

Gate rape?

Oh brother.

48 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:05:23pm

Comparing an enhanced pat down search to rape is bullshit.

49 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:05:31pm

re: #46 Conservative Moonbat

Not everyone who get the gate rape treatment gets it because they refuse to go through the scanner. Some get it because they can't get a clear shot of them on the scanner or because they have had medical procedures which make the scanner useless.

I hereby register my objection to that term. Trivializes the real thing for stupid political stupidity.

50 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:05:57pm

re: #47 Gus 802

Gate rape?

Oh brother.

Under any other circumstances it would meet the legal definition of sexual assault.

51 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:06:11pm

re: #50 Conservative Moonbat

Under any other circumstances it would meet the legal definition of sexual assault.

Bulllshit.

52 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:07:02pm

re: #50 Conservative Moonbat

Under any other circumstances it would meet the legal definition of sexual assault.

It is not under any other circumstances, so whether it would or not is irrelevant. Objection stands.

53 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:09:20pm

re: #51 Gus 802

Bulllshit.

Let's change things up a bit.

Let's say you and a lady friend have been doing something 60-100 miles from home and you're driving. As you get back into the car you say to her "if you don't let me grope your crotch I'm leaving you right here in the parking lot and you can find your own way home."

54 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:09:45pm

Definition of Sexual Assault

• Sexual Battery: the unwanted touching of an intimate part of another person for the purpose of arousal by the actor
• Sodomy: forced anal intercourse
• Oral Copulation: forced oral-genital contact
• Rape by a Foreign Object: forced penetration by a foreign object including digits (fingers and toes)
• Rape: penile-vaginal intercourse against a person's will and without consent

55 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:10:18pm

re: #53 Conservative Moonbat

Let's change things up a bit.

Let's say you and a lady friend have been doing something 60-100 miles from home and you're driving. As you get back into the car you say to her "if you don't let me grope your crotch I'm leaving you right here in the parking lot and you can find your own way home."

That's nuts. What the heck is the matter with you?

56 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:10:52pm

re: #53 Conservative Moonbat

I don't know how I can make you see what a pig you are being.

57 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:12:18pm

re: #55 Gus 802

That's nuts. What the heck is the matter with you?

From the victim's POV it's the same thing. They are being blackmailed into letting someone molest them in order to be granted transportation to some place they need to be.

58 reine.de.tout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:12:28pm

re: #53 Conservative Moonbat

Let's change things up a bit.

Let's say you and a lady friend have been doing something 60-100 miles from home and you're driving. As you get back into the car you say to her "if you don't let me grope your crotch I'm leaving you right here in the parking lot and you can find your own way home."

Do the TSA pat-down instructions include a requirement for "genital groping"?

I suspect not. The pat down may involve someone touching you close to your genital area; may include the occasional individual whose genitals get touched accidentally.

But to say the TSA regs are equivalent to you asking someone to grope their crotch is ridiculous.

59 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:14:13pm

re: #57 Conservative Moonbat

From the victim's POV it's the same thing. They are being blackmailed into letting someone molest them in order to be granted transportation to some place they need to be.

A pat down is not a sexual molestation. When you say they are the same thing you demonstrate your ignorance of one or the other or both.

60 Jeff In Ohio  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:14:20pm

re: #33 Conservative Moonbat

Do you care about your constitutional rights being violated?

Only when they are. What amendment guarantees unfettered access to commercial airlines?

What mostly concerns me is the tendency of people to voice opposition to something in hyperbole instead of cold facts.

The use of full body scanners and more invasive pat downs in air travel is most likely related to the rise of PETN as the choice of explosives my Al Quessadia. Since PETN is hard to detect by dogs and somewhat problematic to detect with x-ray, someones going to be sticking their hands by your nuts. The only person more offended by getting the one getting their nuts slapped is the guy or gal doing the slapping.

Don't like it, fine. Don't fly. My wife travels to Africa almost monthly, she's not complaining.

61 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:14:28pm

re: #58 reine.de.tout

Do the TSA pat-down instructions include a requirement for "genital groping"?

I suspect not. The pat down may involve someone touching you close to your genital area; may include the occasional individual whose genitals get touched accidentally.

But to say the TSA regs are equivalent to you asking someone to grope their crotch is ridiculous.

It's my understanding that at least for males it involves direct genital contact.

62 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:14:52pm

re: #57 Conservative Moonbat

From the victim's POV it's the same thing. They are being blackmailed into letting someone molest them in order to be granted transportation to some place they need to be.

A) They're not victims and are only victims of their own ignorance if they refuse to go through the AIT scanner which leads to a pat down search which lead to B) they are not being blackmailed because everyone going to the airport knows this coming in.

63 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:16:13pm

re: #60 Jeff In Ohio

Only when they are. What amendment guarantees unfettered access to commercial airlines?

What mostly concerns me is the tendency of people to voice opposition to something in hyperbole instead of cold facts.

The use of full body scanners and more invasive pat downs in air travel is most likely related to the rise of PETN as the choice of explosives my Al Quessadia. Since PETN is hard to detect by dogs and somewhat problematic to detect with x-ray, someones going to be sticking their hands by your nuts. The only person more offended by getting the one getting their nuts slapped is the guy or gal doing the slapping.

Don't like it, fine. Don't fly. My wife travels to Africa almost monthly, she's not complaining.

It's a federal regulation requiring a very invasive search without due process. It's surely a 4th amendment violation.

64 reine.de.tout  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:18:03pm

re: #61 Conservative Moonbat

It's my understanding that at least for males it involves direct genital contact.

So go through the scanner.
The amount of radiation from it is about 1/100 of the amount you get DAILY from just living in your home.

65 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:22:09pm

re: #62 Gus 802

A) They're not victims and are only victims of their own ignorance if they refuse to go through the AIT scanner which leads to a pat down search which lead to B) they are not being blackmailed because everyone going to the airport knows this coming in.

Sometimes air travel is a necessity either for work or family reasons. It's unreasonable to expect people to opt out simply because they don't like having their junk groped, though I do expect this to put a sizable dent in airline profits if it doesn't change soon.

Not every elects for the "pat down" many people are forced to take that option because of pins and screws implanted in their body or other artifacts of medical procedures. Others are forced to do the patdown simply because they forgot to take something out of their pockets when they walked through the scanner. It is NOT only done to people who opt out of the scan. In many instances it's "get the grope or don't fly."

66 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:23:43pm

re: #64 reine.de.tout

So go through the scanner.
The amount of radiation from it is about 1/100 of the amount you get DAILY from just living in your home.

I would go through the scanner, but if I leave my cell phone in my jacket pockets I'd get groped anyway.

67 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:23:55pm

re: #65 Conservative Moonbat

Sometimes air travel is a necessity either for work or family reasons. It's unreasonable to expect people to opt out simply because they don't like having their junk groped, though I do expect this to put a sizable dent in airline profits if it doesn't change soon.

Not every elects for the "pat down" many people are forced to take that option because of pins and screws implanted in their body or other artifacts of medical procedures. Others are forced to do the patdown simply because they forgot to take something out of their pockets when they walked through the scanner. It is NOT only done to people who opt out of the scan. In many instances it's "get the grope or don't fly."

It's not groping. Calling it groping was popularized by Alex Jones and Drudge Report.

68 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:26:41pm

re: #67 Gus 802

It's not groping. Calling it groping was popularized by Alex Jones and Drudge Report.

It's been popularized by people who have been groped. It's the term they use.

69 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:27:17pm

re: #66 Conservative Moonbat

I would go through the scanner, but if I leave my cell phone in my jacket pockets I'd get groped anyway.

You are supposed to take your jacket off and put it in the bin. How often did you say you fly?

70 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:27:25pm

re: #65 Conservative Moonbat

Sometimes air travel is a necessity either for work or family reasons. It's unreasonable to expect people to opt out simply because they don't like having their junk groped, though I do expect this to put a sizable dent in airline profits if it doesn't change soon.

Not every elects for the "pat down" many people are forced to take that option because of pins and screws implanted in their body or other artifacts of medical procedures. Others are forced to do the patdown simply because they forgot to take something out of their pockets when they walked through the scanner. It is NOT only done to people who opt out of the scan. In many instances it's "get the grope or don't fly."

BTW. The AIT scanner cannot penetrate human tissue. There's no way it would reveal "pins and screws implanted in their body or other artifacts of medical procedures." That's just impossible.

71 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:27:27pm

re: #68 Conservative Moonbat

It's been popularized by people who have been groped. It's the term they use.

Link?

72 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:28:07pm

re: #70 Gus 802

BTW. The AIT scanner cannot penetrate human tissue. There's no way it would reveal "pins and screws implanted in their body or other artifacts of medical procedures." That's just impossible.

I believe our Moonbat here lacks credibility.

73 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:32:23pm

re: #71 wrenchwench

Link?

I've mostly been following links from here. I don't read all the subreddits so ignore the Ron Paul stuff. I'd say reddit averages 100 links a day on it.

[Link: www.reddit.com...]

74 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:35:38pm

re: #73 Conservative Moonbat

I've mostly been following links from here. I don't read all the subreddits so ignore the Ron Paul stuff. I'd say reddit averages 100 links a day on it.

[Link: www.reddit.com...]

The word "grope" does not appear on that page. If I go to the fourth page of comments, "grope" appears like this, "I was not groped by the TSA. "

You want to try again? Or are you just trolling?

75 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:37:11pm

re: #73 Conservative Moonbat

I've mostly been following links from here. I don't read all the subreddits so ignore the Ron Paul stuff. I'd say reddit averages 100 links a day on it.

[Link: www.reddit.com...]

You mean like this?

It is not bad and it's done for everyone's safety. This is a waste of time and complaints mostly by people that don't even go through security lines. People love jumping on bandwagons and that's what this is. I travel about 10 weeks/yr and it's not a crazy scene at security. This has nothing to do with me traveling a lot and going through different lines...I'm telling you that I have never seen a problem and only irritated people (me included sometimes) at being searched because your running late for a flight. It's just a lot of bullshit complaining...maybe we should have no security and just let everyone onto planes? Come on Reddit; don't pour gasoline onto this lame fire.

Edit 1: How many of these comments are based on anything besides the firestorm that TSA sucks? SO many people say ignorant or it's not necessary but with no explanation. If I say it is necessary I'm wrong now but you're right? Come on Reddit you're better then that.

Edit 2: Who has gone through this? I'm guessing very few esp. if you're forever alone.

Edit 3: Thank you for all the downvotes to keep this off any page -- wouldn't want to discuss something.

Edit 4: I have to fly home now (haha) and plan on sleeping during the plane ride. Talk with you in a couple hours Reddit.

Hmm. He actually makes a lot of sense.

76 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:38:29pm

re: #74 wrenchwench

The word "grope" does not appear on that page. If I go to the fourth page of comments, "grope" appears like this, "I was not groped by the TSA. "

You want to try again? Or are you just trolling?

In the headlines. You probably saw molestation a few times. My point is that sexualized language is what's most commonly used, not necessarily the word "grope." I assumed it was the use of sexualized language at all that was raising an objection.

77 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:39:45pm

re: #75 Gus 802

Yeah, I saw that. With this, like everything else, there's going to be a variety of different experiences and opinions.

78 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:49:17pm

re: #76 Conservative Moonbat

In the headlines. You probably saw molestation a few times. My point is that sexualized language is what's most commonly used, not necessarily the word "grope." I assumed it was the use of sexualized language at all that was raising an objection.

The objection comes from the use of the term "gate rape". Combined with the use of the term "grope", it just demonstrates your unfamiliarity with reality, and makes me think you are trolling for an argument on the subject. Therefore, I'm done here.

79 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:59:00pm

re: #78 wrenchwench

The objection comes from the use of the term "gate rape". Combined with the use of the term "grope", it just demonstrates your unfamiliarity with reality, and makes me think you are trolling for an argument on the subject. Therefore, I'm done here.

Not really. It's just an expression of the contempt I hold for the practice.

80 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:02:10pm

re: #79 Conservative Moonbat

Not really. It's just an expression of the contempt I hold for the practice.

My expression of contempt is at #56 above.

81 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:05:00pm

Sorry, no offense intended.

82 wrenchwench  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:07:51pm

re: #81 Conservative Moonbat

Sorry, no offense intended.

Thanks. That was unexpected.

83 Steve Dutch  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:16:41pm

Whoo! That picture along with the article! I have to go lie down and fan myself to cool down.

That's a porno scanner? Anyone who gets a charge out of an image like that, admittedly should be home on an ankle bracelet, but is more to be pitied than anything else. And if people look at stuff like that because they can't find real porn on line, well, get a 12-year old to help you.

84 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 9:56:50pm

The AIT scanner is not the same as a dental x-ray. Never thought I'd see the day when scientific misinformation made its way into LGF.

85 celticdragon  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 9:59:05pm

re: #61 Conservative Moonbat

It's my understanding that at least for males it involves direct genital contact.

Yes, it does.

ABC News reported that women having patdown may have to remove skirts or dresses as well.

and the screener can use either the front or back of their hand to feel your body, including the buttocks, between the legs, and feeling up to the top of the thigh. Some women may be asked to remove their skirts in a private screening area, and they will be given a towel or gown to put on.

Being forced to disrobe and have a stranger feel between your legs for a non medical reason starts sounduing like a form of assault to me.

Sorry, but that is how I see it. Fuck safety. I'll stay with essential liberties if it comes to that choice.

86 celticdragon  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 10:02:17pm

re: #83 SteveDutch

Whoo! That picture along with the article! I have to go lie down and fan myself to cool down.

That's a porno scanner? Anyone who gets a charge out of an image like that, admittedly should be home on an ankle bracelet, but is more to be pitied than anything else. And if people look at stuff like that because they can't find real porn on line, well, get a 12-year old to help you.

The brits have a different opinion...

The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.

Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.

Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.

You were saying something about 12 yars olds...?

87 ThomasLite  Fri, Nov 26, 2010 2:45:20am

re: #83 SteveDutch

get a 12-year old to help you.

then again *that* would be illegal...


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
I Know It’s Over- the SmithsI know it's over - still I clingI don't know where else I can goOver, over, over, over and overOver and over Dedicated to MAGAts, Qanons, and, most especially, Trump.
iceweasel
20 hours, 52 minutes ago
Views: 201 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 •
HAVASI — the Storm — Premiere at the Franz Liszt Academy of Music Havasi is a Hungarian composer known for building cultural bridges through music (note the Taiko drummers used for this.) This video was recorded at the world premiere of 'HAVASI Symphonic' at the Franz Liszt Academy of Music in Budapest ...
Thanos
1 day, 7 hours ago
Views: 242 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 •
Better Days Are Coming - Jimmy CliffI can't think of a better song to mark the official end of the Trump era.
thecommodore
2 days, 5 hours ago
Views: 345 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210117We were a bit short of top soil to finish off the jasmine bed. Not enough for another truckload (thank goodness) so we bought a pallet of 65 bags and had it delivered. Two bags of soil conditioner and about ...
Dangerman
4 days, 14 hours ago
Views: 610 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 5
Tweets: 0 •
David Bowie - Tryin’ to Get to Heaven (Official Audio) Official audio for David Bowie's cover version of @Bob Dylan's Tryin' To Get To Heaven released to mark what would have been David's 74th birthday on the 8th January 2021. Subscribe now: bit.ly Watch David Bowie's official music videos ...
Thanos
4 days, 19 hours ago
Views: 555 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 •
Kings of Leon - 100,000 People (Visualizer) Kings of Leon // When You See Yourself // The New Album Available March 5Feat. “100,000 People” & “The Bandit” // Listen: smarturl.it Pre-Order / Pre-Save: smarturl.it Director: Robert Smyth & Casey McGrathCinematographer: Janusz Kaminski Editor: Adam ZuckermanColor: Tom ...
Thanos
4 days, 19 hours ago
Views: 565 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 3 •
Mogwai - Ritchie Sacramento (Official Video) The official music video for Mogwai – Richie Sacramento, the second single taken from 'As The Love Continues', you can pre-order it at store.mogwai.scot CreditsDirector and build : Sam Wiehl (vimeo.com)Editor : Kit MonteithSpecial thanks to Polyphoria, Aglobex, NatureManufacture ...
Thanos
5 days, 8 hours ago
Views: 788 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Amanda Shires - That’s All (Official Lyric Video)Music video by Amanda Shires performing That's All (Official Lyric Video). (C) 2020 Silver Knife Records marketed and distributed by Thirty Tigers vevo.ly
Thanos
6 days, 16 hours ago
Views: 935 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
The KLF - Justified & Ancient (Official Video)The KLF - Justified & Ancient (Official Video) An Atlas AdventureDirected by Bill ButtKLF Communications Listen to Solid State Logik 1: smarturl.it
Thanos
1 week ago
Views: 947 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 3 •
Freddie Washington 2010 KSBR Bash If you listen to music at all, then you've heard Freddie & probably liked it. He's played or toured with Herbie Hancock, Michael Jackson, Al Jarreau, Aaron Neville, Lionel Richie, Anita Baker, B.B. King, Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Whitney ...
Thanos
1 week ago
Views: 927 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 4 •