Pages
It’s something everyone can get behind! Everyone hates TSA screeners, everyone hates lines at the airport, and with the volume of traffic there’s always going to be some assholes and creeps working the TSA line.
It’s pathetic to see people manipulated this easily.
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?
| 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 |
| 17 |
FriarsTale Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:31:04pm |
| 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?
| 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 |
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.
| 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 |
• 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.
| 82 |
wrenchwench Tue, Nov 23, 2010 4:07:51pm |
| 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...?
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... CheechakoKGxvi
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
