It really doesn't seem like a huge issue; however, it's all that talk radio's been talking about recently, and talk radio is all I've been listening to recently. So it bugs me.

My disagreement with the right's take on this whole thing:

1) They repeatedly refer to patdowns as "groping"; that seems disingenuous to me. Just because a TSA agent puts a hand along a person's inner thigh or above or below a woman's breast does not mean he or she is groping that individual; I'm pretty sure that's called a patdown.

2) Where do all these right wingers stand on the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping? Patting someone for weapons before boarding an airplane strikes me as less of a violation to someone's civil liberties than spying on what someone reads on the internet or says over the telephone in the privacy of his or her own home. I hesitate to fault them too much for fighting for civil liberties, but I can't help but question their motives.

3) At first, I assumed this was the other side of the "Obama's weak on terrorism" coin; however, I've become increasingly aggravated to see this as yet another reason to espouse xenophobic animosity towards Muslims or those resembling "extreme Islamo-fascist terrorists". The right wants to scream about what an outrageous violation of civil liberties this is, but not if it's being done to Muslims.

Either Obama's weak on security or infringing on our civil liberties, but I thought that we needed to sacrifice civil liberties so that we can maintain our security. It seems that I've lost track of the talking points.

On an unrelated note, I've noticed that right wing radio hosts refer to the IRS as the most aggressive collection agency, and they promote companies that will prevent the IRS from collecting listeners' owed back taxes; at the same time, they criticize Tim Geithner for not having paid the IRS his back taxes. Ugh, wtf? I think the sole purpose of talk radio is to confuse its listeners into not knowing what to think about anything.

/rant

11/22/2010 5:15:08 PM

Haha you listen to talk radio.

11/22/2010 5:22:24 PM

Above average rant IMO



all good points, I'm not sure talk radio is ever gonna make sense, its all rhetoric and talking points. The TSA will either change its policies from the pressure or people will forget about it soon.

[Edited on November 22, 2010 at 5:40 PM. Reason : .]

11/22/2010 5:36:44 PM

Sadly. Speaking of which:

There's apparently this guy on Sunday mornings who refers to himself as Jesus Christ, his callers refer to him as Jesus Christ, and he answers their questions as if he is the Son of God.

At first, I thought it was tied to the South Park character somehow.

11/22/2010 5:41:36 PM

Quote :

" Just because a TSA agent puts a hand along a person's inner thigh or above or below a woman's breast does not mean he or she is groping that individual; I'm pretty sure that's called a patdown."

I think you need to come up to speed on this issue quickly. There is a thread in Chit Chat that has been going on since this dropped.

I consider someone running their hand up until they touch my cock, groping.

Quote :

"Where do all these right wingers stand on the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping?"

There has always been a segment that doesn't like the Patriot Act. I didn't listen to enough right wing chuckleheads in the past to know which were ok with wiretapping but not with this. Can you cite specific examples?

Quote :

" The right wants to scream about what an outrageous violation of civil liberties this is, but not if it's being done to Muslims."

Again, can you cite who you are referring to here?

Quote :

"and they promote companies that will prevent the IRS from collecting listeners' owed back taxes"

No. The IRS commercials I've heard run on Becks radio show doesn't say they'll prevent the IRS from collecting back taxes, just that they'll help you handle the audit and avoid paying more than you are required. Listen to this stuff with an unbiased mind.

11/22/2010 5:53:53 PM

so it's only right wingers who oppose the new TSA screenings? when did this happen?

11/22/2010 5:59:56 PM

Protecting civil liberties only mattered when Bush was in office.

11/22/2010 6:03:08 PM

^^
I never said that only right wingers oppose the new TSA screenings. I was posting my disagreement with the right's take on this whole thing.

Quote :

"I think you need to come up to speed on this issue quickly. There is a thread in Chit Chat that has been going on since this dropped."

Perhaps you're right. I wouldn't have even known this was such a big issue had I not heard it every time I got into my car.

Quote :

"I didn't listen to enough right wing chuckleheads in the past to know which were ok with wiretapping but not with this. Can you cite specific examples?"

No, I cannot at the moment; however, are you suggesting that right wing talk radio hosts argued vociferously against the provisions in the Patriot Act that allowed for warrantless wiretapping? As I recall, they were harping on the need for security and how the fourth amendment wasn't so important as to warrant another terrorist attack.

I don't know the names of the multiple hosts I've listened to recently; I was not familiar with many of their names when I heard them. However, on nearly every show, they exclaim that we should not be singling out everyday citizens. They continuously harp on the fact that extremist male Muslims are the threat and that we need to profile Muslims and only the Muslims. (For reference, a guy named Cunningham was one of them.)

Quote :

"The IRS commercials I've heard run on Becks radio show doesn't say they'll prevent the IRS from collecting back taxes, just that they'll help you handle the audit and avoid paying more than you are required. Listen to this stuff with an unbiased mind."

Fair enough; I misrepresented their statement. However, I still would argue that they vilify the IRS and its collection of back taxes, yet they also vilified Tim Geithner for having not paid the IRS his back taxes. I'm not sure how less biased that assessment could be.

^
No one has suggested that. I was mostly complaining about talk radio, not the TSA issue.

Ibt "turn the radio off."

[Edited on November 22, 2010 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ]

11/22/2010 6:18:09 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-11-22-scanner-lobby_N.htm

Quote :

"The companies with multimillion-dollar contracts to supply American airports with body-scanning machines more than doubled their spending on lobbying in the last five years and hired several high-profile former government officials to advance their causes in Washington, records show. L-3 Communications, which has sold $39.7 million worth of the machines to the federal government, spent $4.3 million to influence Congress and federal agencies during the first nine months of this year, up from $2.1 million in 2005, lobbying data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show. Last year, the company spent $5.5 million on lobbying. Rapiscan Systems, meanwhile, has spent $271,500 on lobbying so far this year, compared with $80,000 five years earlier. It has faced criticism for hiring Michael Chertoff, the former Homeland Security secretary, who has been a prominent proponent of using scanners to foil terrorism. Officials with Chertoff's firm and Rapiscan say Chertoff was not paid to promote scanner technology. It spent $440,000 on lobbying in 2009. The government has spent $41.2 million so far on Rapiscan's machines."

[Edited on November 23, 2010 at 12:15 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/23/2010 12:15:24 AM

I don’t think you can blame this on lobbying.

The technology is nearly the perfect technology for preventing people from sneaking bombs/weapons onto an airplane. You can’t blame the security officials for salivating at the usage of these machines.

It’s literally the next best thing to machines that can read peoples’ minds.

But, it’s an issue of balance, as this article points out: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/us/23tsa.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Do we as a society with our pre-existing norms want someone to get a glimpse of us naked? For 20% (or 30% depending on the poll), that answer is “NO.” But we definitely don’t want a stranger feeling us up either. The ONLY alternative solution is that we give up some of our safety for a bit more freedom.

I personally wouldn’t want to be the administration official to go on TV to say “we’re giving up on safety… for a little bit more freedom” and then to have 1 month later some terrorist sneak a bomb and kill 100 people on an airplane.

This is a very strange issue, that’s not as easy as people are making it out to be. Advancing technology is only going to make these types of questions more common.

My main reservation at this point is that the dosage numbers the TSA is listing for radiation might be disingenuous, based on what some nuclear scientists have been saying. If they can clarify this issue, I can’t say i really oppose the scanners.

[Edited on November 23, 2010 at 12:42 AM. Reason : ]

11/23/2010 12:39:44 AM

Are we safe yet?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/adam-savage-tsa-saw-my-junk-missed-12-razor-blades.ars

Quote :

"If the TSA thinks you can hijack a plane with saline solution and nail clippers, Savage's 12" razor blades are the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Since the blades weren't anywhere near Savage's privates, they likely would have been missed by the pat-down as well."

11/23/2010 5:00:52 PM

Quote :

"However, on nearly every show, they exclaim that we should not be singling out everyday citizens. They continuously harp on the fact that extremist male Muslims are the threat and that we need to profile Muslims and only the Muslims. (For reference, a guy named Cunningham was one of them.)"

you got it! they're cool with draconian security measures, as long as those measures don't apply to white people

11/23/2010 5:06:30 PM

Quote :

"Ibt "turn the radio off.""

I'll say it. Turn talk radio off -- at least the kind you are talking about. It's all right-wing propaganda designed to fire up the base with little basis in reality. No point in trying to make sense of it.

11/23/2010 5:42:48 PM

We should make all Muslims wear a patch of some sort so the TSA official can identify them for the purpose of extra screening...

11/23/2010 5:57:47 PM

From what I heard in the more-trustworthy left-wing and mainstream media, the enhanced pat-down does sound like groping; I fully expect them to keep rowing about it even if another Rethug takes power, while the wingnuts sit back and trust only the brown people would really need to fear.

11/23/2010 7:14:41 PM

Airports say security checks going smoothly

Quote :

"Since the procedure went into effect at all airports Nov. 1, the TSA has received about 2,000 complaints from passengers about either the new searches or the body scanners, Pistole said Tuesday. About 35 million people have taken flights during that time, he said. "

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-11-24-airporttraffic24_ST_N.htm?csp=34news

11/23/2010 11:36:51 PM

Quote :

"you got it! they're cool with draconian security measures, as long as those measures don't apply to white people ... It's all right-wing propaganda designed to fire up the base with little basis in reality. ... We should make all Muslims wear a patch of some sort so the TSA official can identify them for the purpose of extra screening... ... I fully expect them to keep rowing about it even if another Rethug takes power, while the wingnuts sit back and trust only the brown people would really need to fear. "

This is fascinating to me. During the bush administration, the left has generally been the ones complaining the loudest about the TSA (though anyone that paid attention would find both sides had complaints, just probably not the same ones). As this recent process came into being it appeared that almost everyone, left or right could agree that this was going too far and did nothing to actually improve security. Then it appears that in the last day or two, having realized that they agree with the right about something, the left has begun to take the stance of "better safe than dead, and all of the hubub is just a bunch of racists who only want the brown people to be strip searched anyway."

Is the political animosity in this country so bad, that even when we agree, we have to bicker and disagree on some point just because? Is it not possible, even if the conclusion is reached for different reasons, that we are still better presenting a unified front to this latest government intrusion rather than bickering over who's ideology is pure enough to be allowed to despise being submitted to an ineffective and invasive x-ray or groping just to travel?

11/24/2010 7:41:33 AM

Quote :

"1) They repeatedly refer to patdowns as "groping"; that seems disingenuous to me."

If one person was grouped, the patdowns will be referred to as gropings. If a person says they are conservative, they will be referred to as a right-wing nutjob.

Quote :

"2) Where do all these right wingers stand on the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping?"

I'm against it. It's total garbage and it's still in place.

Quote :

"3) At first, I assumed this was the other side of the "Obama's weak on terrorism" coin; however, I've become increasingly aggravated to see this as yet another reason to espouse xenophobic animosity towards Muslims or those resembling "extreme Islamo-fascist terrorists". The right wants to scream about what an outrageous violation of civil liberties this is, but not if it's being done to Muslims."

The best thing they did about flight security was to put a gun in the cockpit and a lock on the door. We don't need to stop banning things and stop wasting time screening people for banned things. People need to be screened.

11/24/2010 10:08:26 AM

Quote :

"This is fascinating to me. During the bush administration, the left has generally been the ones complaining the loudest about the TSA (though anyone that paid attention would find both sides had complaints, just probably not the same ones). As this recent process came into being it appeared that almost everyone, left or right could agree that this was going too far and did nothing to actually improve security. Then it appears that in the last day or two, having realized that they agree with the right about something, the left has begun to take the stance of "better safe than dead, and all of the hubub is just a bunch of racists who only want the brown people to be strip searched anyway." Is the political animosity in this country so bad, that even when we agree, we have to bicker and disagree on some point just because? Is it not possible, even if the conclusion is reached for different reasons, that we are still better presenting a unified front to this latest government intrusion rather than bickering over who's ideology is pure enough to be allowed to despise being submitted to an ineffective and invasive x-ray or groping just to travel?"

Two points worth mentioning:
(1) There's no "left" in this country. In fact, calling Democrats "the left" is pure and simple propaganda. Right of center welfare capitalists are not leftists.
(2) As a socialist who cares primarily about liberty and about equality of liberty, I find the TSA's recent bullshit unacceptable. I don't care if I agree with Tea Partiers over this or not. We probably agree that the sky is blue too.

[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

11/24/2010 4:11:21 PM

As someone who likes to land in one piece, and as an adult, I have no problem walking through a magic see-through machine or receiving a brisk pat-down around my private parts.

I have no reason to believe the TSA is going to do anything nefarious or perverted. Then again, I also believe JFK was killed by a deranged sniper in a textbook depository building and that Elvis is, in fact, dead.

11/24/2010 5:09:48 PM

Quote :

"As someone who likes to land in one piece, and as an adult, I have no problem walking through a magic see-through machine or receiving a brisk pat-down around my private parts. "

Being an "adult" should have nothing to do with your willingness to surrender your right to consent

I really resent the opinion that people who are comfortable giving Uncle Sam an upgrade to THAT Uncle Sam (you let the kids stay with Uncle Sam!?!?!?!?) are somehow more mature. There's nothing mature about slavish submission to authority, especially authority that does not have your best interests at heart.

Quote :

"I have no reason to believe the TSA is going to do anything nefarious or perverted. Then again, I also believe JFK was killed by a deranged sniper in a textbook depository building and that Elvis is, in fact, dead."

You have no reason to believe that under trained, under paid HUMAN BEINGS are going to behave inappropriately? Damn. I have some land to sell you.

[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

11/24/2010 5:11:51 PM

Republicans seem to be against the TSA scanners and pat downs, which is not the way I thought it would go. I thought for sure that Republicans would be all about national security and Democrats all about the rights of the passengers.

It's kind of weird agreeing with the Republicans, but it looks like I do.

But anyway, this issue pretty much solidifies for me that Republicans are against anything Obama related, and they view TSA as an extension of Obama's policies.

[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .]

11/24/2010 5:16:08 PM

^... what?

It's been a pretty mixed bag on TWW between which ideology supports what.

It seems the consensus in TSB at least is that the new pat down rules go too far.

If the Adam Savage story is true, the weak link in our security isn't technology but mostly poorly trained or just simply incompetent TSA employees that can't properly interpret the data. When you consider the level of incompetence, with the need to sift through 40,000,000 people, the TSA's powers are too broad, with too little recourse.

[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 5:25 PM. Reason : pop]

11/24/2010 5:25:00 PM

You're talking about TWW. I mean on the national stage -- Rush, Fox News, et al.

11/24/2010 5:28:25 PM

By default, those people are going to take whatever stance makes Obama looks bad.

What are the left-ish people saying? I'm under the impression that stewart/colbert and maybe Maher are generally negative on the scans too. Stewart at least is a good proxy i feel like for "real" liberals.

11/24/2010 5:29:55 PM

Eh, I haven't watched Stewart in a while. I was just going off of my parents' endless watching of MSNBC (stuck here for Thanksgiving) and I see Chris Matthews berating Republican strategists because they think the scans/pat-downs go too far, and I was using that as my national political barometer.

[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 5:35 PM. Reason : .]

11/24/2010 5:33:18 PM

Quote :

"Being an "adult" should have nothing to do with your willingness to surrender your right to consent"

I haven't surrendered my right to consent. I consent. The objections to these new procedures are coming from two types of people: petulant civil libertarians who get hysterical about just about everything done by people in uniforms, and opportunistic Republicans.

Quote :

"You have no reason to believe that under trained, under paid HUMAN BEINGS are going to behave inappropriately?"

I have no reason to think they're either under-trained or underpaid, first of all. But yes, I understand that there will inevitably be some bad apples. I know how to file a complaint. I meant that I have no reason to think the purpose of these procedures is to help government bureaucrats get their jollies, or that there is some Orwellian conspiracy afoot.

11/24/2010 5:35:41 PM

11/24/2010 5:35:57 PM

Quote :

"I haven't surrendered my right to consent. I consent. The objections to these new procedures are coming from two types of people: petulant civil libertarians who get hysterical about just about everything done by people in uniforms, and opportunistic Republicans."

All patriots are viewed as petulant babies by cowards, weaklings, and those without an ounce of fucking conviction. The fact that YOU consent to live in a police state to abate your irrational baby fears of Muslims and darkies is irrelevant. If you could ship yourself to a prison island, I'd say consent away. It's just too bad your willingness to abandon every last important value of this country will eventually fuck the rest of us over.

People like you don't desire or deserve liberty, because you're willing to opt out in the face of the flimsiest, most pathetic pressure.

Quote :

"I have no reason to think they're either under-trained or underpaid, first of all. But yes, I understand that there will inevitably be some bad apples. I know how to file a complaint. I meant that I have no reason to think the purpose of these procedures is to help government bureaucrats get their jollies, or that there is some Orwellian conspiracy afoot."

Nobody thinks the PURPOSE of the procedures is for people to get their jollies. It's pretty simple. People like Michael Chertoff have got to get paid and if that means your kid's nuts have to get fondled by TSA perverts then you're okay with that. LOL you're such a pathetic fucking excuse for a man.

[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 5:51 PM. Reason : .]

11/24/2010 5:50:51 PM

The purpose is irrelevant when the implementation is so atrocious (story posted in other thread on this in chit chat):

http://www.newraleigh.com/articles/archive/story-of-rdu-passengers-opt-out-of-body-scan/

No person in the US should have to feel this powerless for asking very basic questions.

11/24/2010 6:11:19 PM

Fight the power, dude.

11/24/2010 6:14:28 PM

Quote :

"Fight the power, dude."

You're fucking right. Gotta love how scared little children like you resort to this sort of foolishness when your disgraceful cowardice is put on full display

Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to struggle against shit like this, spread information, and spread sound argumentation. Every generation has had its intellectual dead weight (you), so I'm not going to let your lazy, dizzy-headed, short-sighted cowardice phase me. All too human.

11/24/2010 6:17:07 PM

Remember that thing I said about petulant people acting hysterically? Yeah, that.

11/24/2010 6:19:18 PM

Quote :

"People need to be screened."

Quote :

"As someone who likes to land in one piece, and as an adult, I have no problem walking through a magic see-through machine or receiving a brisk pat-down around my private parts. "

I'm kind of sick of the false dichotomy that is implied regarding these new machines. It's as if we don't use them or the nut grabbing there is no other way.

First of all. We do screen. We screen calls, internet sites, and intelligence reports with the billions of dollars that have already been poured into this war since 9/11. And i don't know if you noticed, but the track record is pretty fucking good with existing procedures and implementations. That is, the people that would like to bomb themselves and us with them can't get here to do it, even with swiss cheese borders. The underwear bomber? Came from overseas. Oh, and we knew he was a threat, he didn't have a passport, and we still let him board a plane destined for our shores.

The terrorists apparently probed the air cargo system where the certain loss of human life is low, limited to only those on the plane. Allowing that, it seems that the actual death of infidels is lower on their list than some other priorities...because they could certainly strap enough PETN or C4 to themselves, walk into any airport security checkpoint, any stadium game and probably level hundreds of us without much trouble - assuming of course they could even get here (which begs the question, what about homegrown terror here, apparently it just doesn't exist). These machines do nothing for that. But thanks to other measures, they can't get here, when they do they fuck up and let us know, and failing the first two it's pretty hard for them to get enough explosives, knowledge, and technology together to actually do their deeds. We don't need no fucking xray screeners and draconian suits acting like everyone is guilty until likely (but maybe not entirely proven) innocent.

Meanwhile, every year in this country drunk drivers are killing 10x the number that died on 9/11. Should we station cops at every bar in America giving breathalysers to everyone whether they drank or not? Cops at every on ramp to every interstate in the nation doing the same?

Fortunately, our existing measures are working well enough, no need to add this stupid extra security theater layer.

[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 6:31 PM. Reason : .]

11/24/2010 6:24:17 PM

So now feeling strongly about something is "hysterical". These procedures would have been universally considered police-statish in the 90's, but due to gradual concessions by cowards such as yourself, those in power have been able to encroach more and more upon our privacy.

Do you have any argument worth a remote shit justifying this breach of privacy?

So sorry if my strong feelings about this subject don't conform to your expectations of apathy.

11/24/2010 6:25:39 PM

That's probably the first time I've been called apathetic about anti-terrorism policies. Cool beans. I think my argument is pretty straight forward. I don't think people have a right to absolute privacy when flying on commercial jets, and I think the intrusions on privacy caused by these procedures is, for the most part, minimal. And I think democratically elected officials, or public servants appointed and confirmed by democratically elected officials, have not just a right,abut a responsibility, to do what they think is necessary to prevent airplanes full of people from being blown up by nihilistic religious fundamentalists.

And I think characterizing these procedures as being evidence of a police state only demonstrates that you have no fucking idea what a police state looks like.

[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 6:37 PM. Reason : ]

11/24/2010 6:35:17 PM

Quote :

"I don't think people have a right to absolute privacy when flying on commercial jets, and I think the intrusions on privacy caused by these procedures is, for the most part, minimal."

What would you consider a gross intrusion?

Quote :

"And I think democratically elected officials, or public servants appointed and confirmed by democratically elected officials, have not just a right,abut a responsibility, to do what they think is necessary to prevent airplanes full of people from being blown up by nihilistic religious fundamentalists."

The money trail here is obvious. How could you possibly make this argument? It's hilarious.

Quote :

"And I think characterizing these procedures as being evidence of a police state only demonstrates that you have no fucking idea what a police state looks like."

You're the one who doesn't have a fucking clue, actually. We're sliding toward autocracy more and more every day (the voting public is already effectively marginalized by our political system). You're a pretty big fucking dummy and I wish you would dig your head out of your ass, but luckily for everybody you are wholly irrelevant.

"DURR OKAY UNCLE SAM WHATEVER YOU THINK IS BEST *spreads cheeks*" You're a fucking riot. Keep the hits rolling (or rather, dribbling off of your chin)

[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 6:43 PM. Reason : .]

11/24/2010 6:41:01 PM

Quote :

"I don't think people have a right to absolute privacy when flying on commercial jets, and I think the intrusions on privacy caused by these procedures is, for the most part, minimal."

The nut-grabbing isn't a minimal intrusion, based on existing societal norms.

The information on the effects of the nature of the radiation used in the back-scatter machine is non-existent.

The way they are calculating dosage is wrong.

The usage of these machines have been rushed out by paranoid (perhaps understandably so) government officials.

11/24/2010 6:45:45 PM

Right.

11/24/2010 6:46:31 PM

You claim these machines will serve a legitimate security need, but nowhere have you (or anybody else) shown a convincing argument or any convincing evidence that this is true.

Americans who actually give a flipping shit about their intellectual history and genealogy, on the other hand, understand that any infringement upon privacy and liberty should be justified in proportion to the degree of the infringement.

11/24/2010 6:49:44 PM

Quote :

"At most airports, including New Jersey’s Newark, Boston and Miami, only a handful of people skipped scans, the TSA said on its website. As of 12:30 p.m., Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport had the most, with 26, out of an estimated 47,000 people to be screened today, the agency said. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-24/scanner-uproar-shadows-holiday-travel-as-2-million-cram-into-u-s-airports.html

http://blog.tsa.gov/

[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 7:17 PM. Reason : ]

11/24/2010 7:09:27 PM

Ho-ho, hey-hey, the status-quo is A-OK!

11/24/2010 8:25:35 PM

Quote :

"(1) There's no "left" in this country. In fact, calling Democrats "the left" is pure and simple propaganda. Right of center welfare capitalists are not leftists."

Left relative to the center of political discourse in america was a bit long to convey the point.

Quote :

"As someone who likes to land in one piece, and as an adult, I have no problem walking through a magic see-through machine or receiving a brisk pat-down around my private parts. "

Interestingly enough, your odds of dying from a terrorist attack on a plane are about the same as your odds of dying from cancer from these machines ... which means you're actually less safe now as these machines do not reduce your chance of death by terrorist to 0.

Further, since Sept 11 2001, to my knowledge not a single terrorist plot has been stopped by any TSA screener. Most are stopped by real intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and all the others got through the TSA and were stopped by their own incompetence or the passengers on board. Read that again, the passengers on board the plane are more successful at stopping terrorists than the TSA. Even worse the years since the TSA was put into place are full of examples such as the one highlighted above where for all the bluster and "safety" of the TSA, people are getting through with actual real weapons, not mere nail clippers.

Quote :

"I have no reason to believe the TSA is going to do anything nefarious or perverted. Then again, I also believe JFK was killed by a deranged sniper in a textbook depository building and that Elvis is, in fact, dead. "

It does not take a conspiracy theorist to view these new TSA policies as an encroachment of civil liberties and a warning of the ever expanding authoritarian state. It merely takes one being a student of history to see the inevitable path that all governments take. And it takes the realization that the job of regulators, legislators and bureaucrats is to make laws and to regulate, and that if left to their own devices, they will legislate or regulate everything they can. This isn't a conspiracy, it's a simple extension of the principle that people will in general act in their own interest, and it is in the interest of these regulators, legislators and TSA screeners to develop whatever reasons and purposes they can to keep their jobs. It's not evil or nefarious, it's simply the natural way of things.

Quote :

"Republicans seem to be against the TSA scanners and pat downs, which is not the way I thought it would go. I thought for sure that Republicans would be all about national security and Democrats all about the rights of the passengers. "

Don't mistake conservative for Republican. I think there is a larger growing number of people (evidenced by the tea party movement, which is not the Tea Party) of conservatives who have had enough of Washington and the government in general. The have been largely overshadowed in the media by opportunistic republicans who have co-opted the name, but they are there, they are getting louder and they are starting to learn that they don't need to necessarily vote for the lesser of two evils, that despite what the national narrative is, there is more than Republican or Democrat to vote for.

I think what we are seeing now is that the conservative branch of these conservative moderates are starting to break themselves loose of the Republicans. No longer can they hold their nose and go along simply because it was "close enough". This is why you seem to have this group who were "silent" during the Bush administration getting vocal now. There's another branch of these moderates that found themselves closely aligned with the Democrats before now. For the time being, I think they are still clinging to the hope that Obama will change (pun only partially intended), but are themselves becoming disillusioned and finding an odd kinship in the conservative side (see the recent elections). To be honest, I think it will take another 4 years of Obama failing to bring the change for this coalition of moderates to actually band and gain any real momentum. Unfortunately I think that same catalyst is also likely to bring us another dyed in the wool republican as president. This is why I said above that we need to not bicker for the sake of bickering, but find our common enemy in the government (which is controlled by those on both sides which would sell you to slavery or kill you if it meant more power) and work to reverse this course.

Quote :

"Eh, I haven't watched Stewart in a while. I was just going off of my parents' endless watching of MSNBC (stuck here for Thanksgiving) and I see Chris Matthews berating Republican strategists because they think the scans/pat-downs go too far, and I was using that as my national political barometer. "

As I mentioned above, this seems to fall in with what I'm seeing outside the major media outlets as well. I see people who I would commonly identify as left of center defending these pat downs while those on the right seem to be the most up in arms. I'm sure some of it is plain partisanship, but it seems to be even more extensive than even that. I wonder if this isn't a symptom of how sick our political process has become that even those who would agree with each other still have to fight because they just don't trust the other's motives anymore.

Quote :

"The purpose is irrelevant when the implementation is so atrocious ... No person in the US should have to feel this powerless for asking very basic questions."

Quoted for truth.

Quote :

"I think my argument is pretty straight forward. I don't think people have a right to absolute privacy when flying on commercial jets, "

No one is talking about absolute privacy, they are talking about their right to be free from unreasonable searches as guaranteed by the constitution. These scans go way beyond simple privacy though. Look at it this way, even the police would not be allowed to preform this thorough of a search on random people, but for some reason, simply because you want to board a plane, the TSA are allowed.

Quote :

"And I think democratically elected officials, or public servants appointed and confirmed by democratically elected officials, have not just a right,abut a responsibility, to do what they think is necessary to prevent airplanes full of people from being blown up by nihilistic religious fundamentalists."

Except they have a phenomenally bad track record at doing this with TSA screenings. So what of their track record of allowing real weapons and real terrorists through (including the few weeks since this has gone into place) suggests to you that these invasions will improve anything?

Quote :

"You claim these machines will serve a legitimate security need, but nowhere have you (or anybody else) shown a convincing argument or any convincing evidence that this is true. Americans who actually give a flipping shit about their intellectual history and genealogy, on the other hand, understand that any infringement upon privacy and liberty should be justified in proportion to the degree of the infringement. "

Again, quoted for truth.

Quote :

"At most airports, including New Jersey’s Newark, Boston and Miami, only a handful of people skipped scans, the TSA"

Of course they would say that... [/conspiracy theorist]


lazarus, look at it this way. For me and McDanger to agree on anything in TSB has about the same probability as you getting blown up on a plane. If we're agreeing here, there's a pretty good chance you're wrong.

11/24/2010 9:31:25 PM

Can't argue with that logic.

Quote :

"You claim these machines will serve a legitimate security need, but nowhere have you (or anybody else) shown a convincing argument or any convincing evidence that this is true."

People have tried to bring bombs onto planes by hiding the explosives under their clothing. These machines can see underneath clothing.

Quote :

"since Sept 11 2001, to my knowledge not a single terrorist plot has been stopped by any TSA screener."

It's called deterrence.

Really, though, you guys should continue being righteously indignant over some slightly modified x-ray machines and pat-downs. The bits about this being a sign of an authoritarian police state are especially adorable, in the way that some retards are adorable. I can literally see the foam and Cheetos crumbs flying out of McDanger's mouth as he fumes over this.

Oh and happy Thanksgiving

[Edited on November 25, 2010 at 9:00 AM. Reason : ]

11/25/2010 8:59:49 AM

Quote :

"It's called deterrence."

Then we don't need these machines if the existing deterrent measures are working.

Quote :

"People have tried to bring bombs onto planes by hiding the explosives under their clothing."

Remind me again how these machines will detect this

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

Quote :

"How did he do it? Taking a trick from the narcotics trade - which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities - Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum."

With that knowledge we can basically see that these machines are an expensive waste of money designed to capture the dumbest of would be suicide bombers. You know, the same type of guys that can't get a fucking gasoline and propane bomb to go off. The same type of guys we nab LONG before they have a chance to try this because of sophisticated intelligence.

11/25/2010 9:09:18 AM

Quote :

"People have tried to bring bombs onto planes by hiding the explosives under their clothing. These machines can see underneath clothing. "

And yet, the vaunted TSA failed to catch two 12 inch razor blades hidden in the clothing of someone without malicious intent. Do you have any reason to believe that even with their magic machine they will catch someone trying to hide their weapons?

Incidentally, do you know what else can detect explosives under someone's clothing, and has not only a better success rate but also does not requires subjecting american citizens to xrays or actions which if conducted by any other person (including your local police) would be considered sexual assault?

Dogs.

Quote :

"It's called deterrence. "

I'll be the first to admit that the downside of effective security is the difficulty in knowing how many attacks it prevents on deterrence, but what events of the past 10 years have lead you to believe the ineffective actions of the TSA have done anything to deter attacks? Is it the shoe bomber? The christmas day bomber? The recent cargo bombs? The trans-atlantic group in london? Is your argument seriously that a TSA staffed by poorly trained people, using techniques that go agains the very nature of humans (we suck at picking out one wrong item from a sea of thousands of normal items), that have routinely failed to detect real weapons held by non malicious people and those of actual terrorists, is actually deterring terrorists from attempting to attack?

[Edited on November 25, 2010 at 9:22 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/25/2010 9:20:33 AM

Quote :

"Then we don't need these machines if the existing deterrent measures are working."

They didn't deter Abdulmutallab. And I wouldn't expect, or want, the TSA or any other federal agency to rely on the ineptitude of terrorists. They might as well cross their fingers and pray if that's their strategy. And from their perspective, the Internet-fueled backlash over these new machines is absolutely nothing compared to the outrage they'll see when a passenger jet explodes over Boston.

I take the point about there being a very low chance of dying in a terrorist attack. I just think the fairly minor inconvenience posed by these procedures is worth the peace of mind (And even if it isn't, to suggest that this is some tyrannical act of oppression is still idiotic).

Quote :

"Remind me again how these machines will detect this"

I didn't say they could detect every possible threat. I said they could detect bombs hidden in ways that bombs have recently been hidden.

Quote :

"Incidentally, do you know what else can detect explosives under someone's clothing, and has not only a better success rate but also does not requires subjecting american citizens to xrays or actions which if conducted by any other person (including your local police) would be considered sexual assault? Dogs."

This may well be an entirely fair point. I don't claim to be an expert in airport security. Perhaps there are more effective ways to detect and deter would-be terrorists. That's a conversation I would find productive and interesting.

But that's not the argument on display here. Hell, if the TSA had rolled out a new policy that had dogs sniffing around people's crotches, you'd still have the McDangers of the world howling about Big Brother.

[Edited on November 25, 2010 at 9:38 AM. Reason : ]

11/25/2010 9:30:21 AM

Quote :

"And from their perspective, the Internet-fueled backlash over these new machines is absolutely nothing compared to the outrage they'll see when a passenger jet explodes over Boston."

And when they miss the next bomb, as they have done countless times before, and will do again with 100% certainty, how will the outrage of subjecting thousands of americans to government sanctioned molestation and a passenger jet exploding over boston compare?

11/25/2010 9:54:14 AM

Pretty minuscule, I'd imagine, considering that the current "outrage" is coming from a vocal minority to begin with.

11/25/2010 10:08:40 AM

Quote :

"Hell, if the TSA had rolled out a new policy that had dogs sniffing around people's crotches, you'd still have the McDangers of the world howling about Big Brother."

Putting words in my mouth will get the taste slapped out of yours. You're far too stupid to speak for me, so speak for yourself you fucking disgusting, traitorous wretch.

It doesn't so much bother me that you're a shadow of a man; it bothers me more that your weak-kneed pussy shit will make shadows of everybody, in the limit.

Quote :

"Pretty minuscule, I'd imagine, considering that the current "outrage" is coming from a vocal minority to begin with."

Practically every idea of worth comes from vocal minorities.

[Edited on November 25, 2010 at 10:25 AM. Reason : .]

11/25/2010 10:24:37 AM