Giving up Liberty to The TSA?

[MineralMan]

New procedures, including backscatter scanners and more intense pat-down searches, at US airports have been quite the topic over the past few days. This new stuff has generated many cries about our liberties being taken away in the name of security. One notable part of this discussion is that a large number of people who are disturbed by these more invasive searches are declaring that they will not fly at all. Some have even said that they haven't flown since 9/11 or for a very long time.

That got me thinking a little about who is losing their liberty. Is it those who choose not to travel by air, thus restricting their liberty to travel as they please? Or, is it those who shrug at this stuff and continue to fill the aircraft flying to and from destinations all over this planet? Who has really lost liberty?

I fly. My first trip by air was in 1965, when I flew from LAX to San Antonio to begin basic training in the USAF. Since that first flight, I've flown hundreds of times, to destinations all over the world. I love flying. I can go places that would be completely impractical to visit by any other means of transportation. I visit distant family. I've traveled very often on business. Now that I'm retired from my business of journalism, I travel less frequently. I have smaller means than I once had. These days, my travel is pretty much limited to family visits at holidays. I enjoy traveling, and traveling when I choose to the destinations I choose has been important to me all my life. I get there by flying.

A long time ago, some hijackings of airplanes caused security measures to be introduced to travelers. It started with carry-on bag inspections, then magnetometer gates were added to check for metal objects carried by people. X-ray machines were added to peer into our baggage, to check for dangerous items. The security screenings have slowly gotten more complicated, leading up to today's new screening procedures. Over that time, I remember having to turn my new-fangled laptop computer on for the security screener, to demonstrate that it was a working device. Now, I have to plan my carry-on packing a bit, to make sure I don't have things I can't take on the plane. I now have to take off my shoes. On my next flight, on Christmas Day, 2010, I'll have to choose whether to go through a backscatter scanner or get patted down by someone.

Each time the routines have changed, I've adapted my travel to accommodate those changes. I have a simple routine I follow as I get in line for the security screening. I empty my pockets, except for my boarding pass and DL, remove my belt, and put those items into an outside pocket of my carry-on. It all goes in bins, with my notebook computer out of the carry-on, too. It's simple, and when I go through whatever scanner I go through, there's nothing on my person that causes any alarm on anyone's part. There's nothing in my carry-on laptop bag, either, that will cause any alarm to the person watching the screen. So, I pick up my stuff, find a seat and put my shoes and belt back on and refill my pockets, then move on to the gate. I suppose this all adds five minutes or so to the time it takes me to get to my gate, where I board my flight and head for my destination. Sometimes the lines can be long, and are often delayed by people who are unfamiliar with, or who ignore, the screening procedures, but I always get to the airport early enough that such delays are unimportant. I've had some interesting chats with people waiting in those lines.

I fly. I love flying to familiar places or to places I've never been. Freedom to travel as I choose is one of the liberties I treasure. I'd be very upset if I couldn't do that. But I can. I choose to. I choose to deal with some minor inconvenience to do so. My liberty to travel is not taken away. If, on the other hand, I objected so strongly to these security procedures that I refused to go through them, one of my liberties would be lost, and by my own decision. I could still travel as I normally do, but I would have chosen not to do so. I would have taken away that freedom of travel from myself. I would have taken away my own liberty.

Ever since security screening began, we've subjected ourselves to some sort of search in order to fly. It's been a long, long time. It's also been a long, long time since a US airplane was hijacked or destroyed by someone. I don't honestly know if the increased security measures has anything to do with that, but it may be keeping would-be terrorists from even trying. I can't say. I know that those security procedures are in place. I can choose whether to fly or not. I choose to fly. I choose to continue to exercise my freedom of travel and go where I want, when I want.

Will someone see a vague image of me naked? Whatever. I can't count the number of people who have seen me naked one time or another. I grew up with communal showers in school and in the military. Will some guy frisk me and maybe (the horror) make contact with my genitals through my clothing? Whatever. It's not a big deal to me. Heck, my doctor gives me a prostate exam once a year. That doesn't bother me either. It's all part of life. I have the liberty to choose not to be subjected to any of those things. In one case, that means giving up traveling by air. In the other, it could mean dying prematurely from prostate cancer. Choices. I choose to maintain my liberty to travel and to get that examination. My body's not that interesting. It's just like everyone else's, more or less. What's in my luggage isn't that interesting. I know what can go in there and what can't, so there's nothing in it that can't be there. Simple.

So, I'm not willing to choose to give up my liberties. I choose to travel by air. I fly. Others may choose to restrict themselves. That's their decision. I'll keep right on doing what I enjoy, and will continue to go where I want, when I want, as long as I can afford it. Maybe I'll see you at the airport. Bon voyage! Or not. It's your choice.

[ixion]

1. I will not trade liberty for security

not a bit.

[MineralMan]

2. OK. Your choice.

You choose to restrict your liberty to travel. I have no problem with your choice. I make a different choice.

[ixion]

40. Traveling as it is these days has nothing whatsoever to do with liberty

And it's not a choice if there is no choice.

[TheWatcher]

44. Delete.

Wrong spot.

[readmoreoften]

131. Actually, the limitation of the choice is the bigger problem to begin with.

[rustydog]

3. These scanners are X-Ray machines and continued

X-Ray exposures can cause cancers. If you are a frequent flyer for business or pleasure, your exposure rate will be dramatically increased. If you get injured at home or work and need X-Rays (Which, as a side issue, must be ordered by a physician) your exposure is increased again. if you are a child, your developing brain and body are very susceptible to X-rays damaging affects.

I would not argue against them as a inconvenience or privacy issue, it should be a healthcare argument. The Government is subjecting every passenger to unnecessary X-Ray exposures based on ignorance and the fear factor.
Flying is a privilege, not a constitutional guarantee and, the Government IS charged to make sure transportation is relatively safe..But there are alternatives to X-Rays and insulting body groping searches.

[Mimosa]

9. Israel doesn't use those scanners.

Those back ray scanners which Michael Chertoff and his cronies are going to make billions from may in fact end up causing cancers. My buddy the med prof is particularly concerned about cancer of the thyroid.

[MineralMan]

13. That concern is why there is a way to opt out of that screening

technique. I'd rather go through the scanner than be patted down. If the pat-down was the only option, I'd still fly.

[gkhouston]

32. If I can't avoid flying, I'm opting for the security feel-up.

I've got autoimmune thyroid disease, which increases my risk of thyroid cancer, and the minute I saw these scanners on the news I realized I wasn't going to go through them unless/until I've had my thyroid removed.

Every time I hear about how the TSA is protecting us, I laugh my ass off. A couple of years ago, my husband passed through a TSA checkpoint and was putting away his passport when he realized that he'd accidentally picked up my passport at home that morning. He and I look nothing like each other and have different last names. The "security" agents didn't notice anything when they were "checking" his documents. :eyes:

[MineralMan]

36. That passport story is unusual.

What I notice, lately, is a double look at the ID and the person by the credential checker the line. It's always seemed pretty thorough to me. I suppose attention slips sometimes, though. Humans are prone to lapses of attention.

[gkhouston]

38. I've wondered if they were less attentive because it was a passport instead of a license.

For a moment, my husband thought of going back and showing his license to establish proper ID, but then realized that would probably not end well. :D

[MineralMan]

42. I don't know. I've traveled with my passport, and use it at domestic

airports when I'm traveling outside the US. It has always seemed to me that it gets more attention than less when compared to my DL. I think your experience was just a moment of inattention and boredom on the part of the person looking at travel documents. I've noticed that they change that person frequently, probably to prevent inattention, when I've been in long security lines. I think they rotate people in and out of that duty often.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

115. i had my ID and ticket match missed by THREE people in one night

At the Denver airport preparing to board a flight my ID was correct but it wasn't my ticket and it was missed by three different 'checkers'. Complete sham the TSA/Security at airports is. Missed by the checker as I entered the line...missed by the checker as I approached the magnetometers...missed by the checker just as I was to enter the machines. It was dumb luck alone that caused me to see that the name on my ticket was NOT MINE.

How could three, highly trained, personnel miss something that glaring? How many did they miss that day?

sP

[MineralMan]

11. Flying, in itself, causes exposure to ionizing radiation, due

to the altitude at which airliners fly. If I were concerned about the radiation from those scanners, which I am not, I would opt for the pat-down. That involves no radiation at all. I appreciate your concern, and there is an option available to you to avoid that concern.

[FLPanhandle]

14. I'm a frequent flyer and my exposure rate will not be dramatically increased.

I don't like or approve of the scanners, but not because of health reasons.

The amount of energy is minimal compared to the increased radiation of actually flying. Most estimates by independent groups put the exposure of the machines as equivalent as ranging between 2 to 15 minutes of flight time. Meaning my flight this week to/from NYC is giving me exposures as high as 90 times the amount I will get going through security.

I don't think the scanners are making flights safer and they are an unnecessary invasion of privacy, but I'm not at all worried about any additional health risk.

[zeemike]

4. Giving up any freedom is a slippery slope

How long will it be before you are required to show your papers by any authority that asks.
You might say it is OK because you have nothing to hide but it is not freedom at all.

[rustydog]

5. Air travel is not a protected "freedom'

You can drive, take the bus, charter a private plane, Amtrak.
This issue is not being able to fly, you can, but under these restrictive rules. These are not theonly choices available, but they are the choices given...The debate needs to be in changing the security measures. X-Rays are unhealthy..Groping searches are just not right.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

116. all travel within our borders by US citizens should be unrestricted

and without these hassles. flying is NOT a choice if you are in business and since this country is supposedly RUN by businesses (for the good or the bad) you would think that the gubbermint would try to encourage interstate travel via plane...

sP

[zeemike]

117. And what other things are not protected freedoms?

To live anywhere you want?...there are other places to live so you don't have the freedom to live here....The freedom to go to a school?...there are other schools you can go to...The freedom to walk down this street?...there are other streets you can walk down....and on and on it goes until you effectively have no freedom at all except to do what you are told.

[MineralMan]

16. Hmm....I end up showing my "papers" to clerks at the supermarket

sometimes. Is that an assault on my liberty? I don't know, but I'm pretty OK with showing my Driver's Licence to anyone who wishes to see it to verify my identity. Sometimes, it protects me from those who would assume my identity and steal my money. :shrug:

[zeemike]

118. Well I don't know...do they check your papers to see if you have

the right to be there?...to see if you have the right to buy food?
Just wait until there is a terrorist attack on our food and that will happen too.

[MadHound]

6. Wow, you had to start a whole thread of its own in order to answer my post,

After you answered my post. Hmmm, guess I hit a bit too close to home.

Oh, one other thing, the only thing that has been effected by my decision not to fly is the length of my journey, not where I go. That, and the fact that I know, unlike you, that I'm neither contributing excessively to our pollution problem(every time you fly, you contribute 1500 tons of carbon to the atmosphere) and that I'm not sacrificing my liberty for security.

You, on the other hand, are doing both despite your laughable justifications. Your carbon footprint is part of the problem, not part of the solution, and the fact that you are willing to suffer indignities and ill health in order to quell your trembling fear of terra, well, that makes Osama smile.

An answer and its own thread, yeah, I guess I did get under your skin:rofl:

[TK421]

17. You wouldn't happen to have a link for that one, would you?

would make for an interesting read, I bet :-)

[MadHound]

27. Here ya go,

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9565461#9568250>

This OP is nothing more than an expanded rationalization for why MM has learned to stop worrying and love the TSA. I guess I got under his skin a bit

[TK421]

28. thanks MadHound ;)

[MineralMan]

18. Actually, it was your question and my answer to it that

was the reason I posted this OP. So, yes, and thanks. I didn't have to start a new thread. I chose to do that. It started a fresh discussion based on a different way of looking at this whole business. Sometimes, I'm stimulated to begin a new thread by something that is brought up in another thread, but that is a different approach to the subject.

I'm in no way calling anyone out with this post. Many people have expressed their unwillingness to fly or that fact that they haven't flown for a long time. I've seen it in every thread on this subject.

You didn't "get under my skin" at all. Your post in that thread was, however, the thing that got me thinking about how I felt about this screening change. I expanded on the answer I gave you so that I could start a new discussion. That sort of thing happens all the time on DU.

You may think my opinion is laughable. That's fine, and that's your opinion.

[LoZoccolo]

7. It's also our liberty to say how far is too far in this case, though.

And to get it changed. I think that's what people are doing here.

[MineralMan]

19. Of course. And that's one of our basic liberties, the liberty

to petition the government for the redress of grievances. That hasn't been abridged, either. I'm just saying that I'll continue to fly. Others may make different decisions. Liberty.

[timtom]

8. And, I'm sure you have nothing to hide.

Have you?

[MineralMan]

20. Actually, I don't, but that's not really the issue.

In some cases, someone with "something to hide" might just have the destruction of an aircraft on his or her mind. That's of some concern, I think. I'm just going from one place to another.

[timtom]

57. Actually, I was parroting an oft-quoted talking point by those

who would justify compliance to an unjust procedure.

[MineralMan]

59. Yes, I know. I recognize it.

[TheWatcher]

87. You should.

[MineralMan]

90. And, as I said, I do.

[classof56]

10. Glad you're okay with all this.

Also, nice you can afford to fly. Way to go! As for me, I'm not okay with the invasive searches nor can I afford to fly so these things are not an issue in my life. But should the occasion arise that I must fly, and hiring a private plane isn't in my future, I will indeed resent these personal searches. I'm one of those grandmas who sees no reason on earth for anyone, especially someone in a uniform, to feel up my sagging breasts or clutch my crotch just so I can get on a plane. Makes me shudder to think about it. And yes, I have procedures that are much more intrusive, but these are done in a private space by medical professionals who I trust and who are doing it for my own good. Perhaps "doing it for the good of the country" could be said of the professionals who "frisk" passengers, but as for me, I feel this old grey-haired grannie deserves to maintain her dignity, and thus my choice is to keep my feet on the ground. Or on the accelerator of a car as long as they let me keep driving. As I understand it, flyin' itself isn't that much fun anymore, anyhow. I suspect the friendly skies won't miss me at all!

Peace.

[MineralMan]

25. Everyone makes choices.

I don't fly as often as I used to. I can't afford to. I also can't afford not to visit my parents, who are 86 years old, at least once a year. I can't afford the six days it would take for me to drive to visit them, either. Air travel makes it possible for me to visit them, and I know that each time I do may be the last time I do.

We all make choices, and we all have different reasons for the choices we make.

As for flying being fun, it still is for me. The short time spent going through a security screening doesn't diminish that for me. For others, the experience may be different, but for me, the pleasure of traveling, the opportunity to meet and chat with new people, and the incredible opportunity to view the planet from a high altitude keep traveling fun for me. And, of course, there is the destination and the reason I'm going to that destination. Sometimes, that's priceless.

[Rebubula]

35. Planet from Altitude

That is my main pleasure for flying.

I LOVE sitting in my window seat as we fly across the country (especially when going across the Western States with all the amazing geography) - listening to moe., drinking some wine or beer and reading the latest tough-guy, spy novel - all the while being amazed at the fact that I am 30,000 feet in the air.


Flying will always be magical to me and there is no way that I would forfeit that wonder.

I may grouse about some of the airport crap - but once we are in the air - Nirvana

[MineralMan]

37. It is a terrific perspective, isn't it?

On one flight I was on from MSP to SFO, the plane took a slightly different route, due to weather, and we flew over the meteor crater in Arizona. I'd never seen it from the air, and commented to my wife, who leaned over and took a look. My comment got other passengers looking, too, and even a flight attendant had a peek. To my surprise, a lot of the nearby passengers had never even heard of it, so I gave an impromptu lecture on that crater to those sitting near me. Everyone was very interested.

I'm amazed at how few people look out the window, though. It's such a great opportunity.

[zipplewrath]

12. You ignore the millions of dollars lost

The amount of lost, or confiscated materials due to these restrictions is both uncalculated, and the estimates astounding. The added costs to travel are huge as well, both in delays, missed flights, and resources that could be dedicated to other efforts.

We could come to your house once a week and look for contraband. It would be of little inconvience to you, technically you wouldn't have to even be there. Yes, occasionally things would go missing, and you wouldn't know if the search did it, or if you had been robbed. We'd leave a note when we'd been there. If something got damaged, there might be a process for you to recover damages, but security reasons might prevent us from giving you the information you needed to make a claim. Oh, and if we showed up while you were having a birthday party, well too bad, you'll just have to wait. Better hope you weren't trying to make a baby when they showed up too.

You could have a choice though. We'll never come if you never leave your property.

Ready to make the deal?

[kctim]

22. Amazing

You really don't see the difference between CHOOSING to use a service and you're own personal property?

[zipplewrath]

45. Amazing

You don't see a right to travel anywhere in the constitution.

[MineralMan]

51. Yup, it's in there, alright.

So far, I'm still exercising that right, anytime I wish, too.

[kctim]

54. Some 'right to travel' is not at issue

following the rules to travel as YOU have chosen is.
You agree to go the speed limit, you agree not to smoke on trains, you agree to searches to fly. You don't want to agree to the rules, walk.
Of course, I'm sure people would then bitch about having to walk on sidewalks instead of not down the middle of the road.

[MineralMan]

60. Exactly. None of our liberties are without limits.

All are limited in some way or another.

[zipplewrath]

64. I can walk on a sidewalk

Without being groped or searched or scanned.

[kctim]

66. Yep

You can CHOOSE to walk on a sidewalk without all that.
You can CHOOSE to drive and follow those rules.
You can CHOOSE to fly and follow those rules.

The fact is, you CHOOSE your mode of travel and you CHOOSE the rules you accept to use that mode. Why do you expect everybody to accomadate you, when YOU are the one making the choices?

[zipplewrath]

67. The constitution doesn't see it that way

It says I have a RIGHT to walk on the sidewalk.

But maybe you like your way better.

[boppers]

152. You can fly without being groped, searched, or scanned.

You cannot walk onto some property (say a courthouse, or nightclub) without being groped, searched, scanned, not can you get onto somebody else's plane without being groped, searched, or scanned.

Hint: BUY YOUR OWN DAMN PLANE.

[MineralMan]

26. That's odd. I've never lost anything or had anything confiscated

in security screenings. Why would that happen?

I think you're stretching the issue a bit in your reply.

[zipplewrath]

31. Go look at the barrels at major screening points

It's full of all manner of items. As I recall, the TSA has regular http://travel.yahoo.com/p-interests-20727057;_ylc=X3oDMTFrZXJjazY1BF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEX3MDMjcxOTQ4MQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDZnAtdG9kYXltb2QEc2xrA2xvb3Q">sales of this stuff. And some of it wasn't confiscated, it was accidentally left behind. This strangely includes a fair number of lap tops.

I've lost food, and they've attempted to confiscate my knife several times (I've alway arranged to have it mailed to myself). You don't have to stand there long to see alot of toiletries confiscated.

[gkhouston]

33. Yeah, my husband's mailed his knife once or twice--and his is smaller than mine,

only about the size of your pinkie. It's on his keychain, which is how he forgets it sometimes. It's kind of silly that blades that tiny would be considered threatening. I could better understand it with my pocketknife, although even that is a bit of a stretch.

[MineralMan]

41. Your knife? Those have not been allowed as carry on items

for a long time. I zip mine into a compartment in my checked bag, then take it out when I arrive. I've carried a pocket knife since I was 10 years old, and wouldn't be without it. I pack carefully, and check my carry-on for forgotten prohibited items before I leave for the airport. Seems like a basic thing to me.

As for the toiletries, those mostly come from inexperienced travelers who aren't aware of the restrictions. None of that stuff in my carry-on at all, nor my wife's. All of that either goes in our shared checked bag or we buy small quantities at the destination.

Laptops? I can't imagine forgetting my laptop at a security screening. I really can't. I suppose it happens, but I just can't imagine it.

[zipplewrath]

43. Sorry you can't imagine that people aren't perfect

I understand that's a stretch for someone like yourself, but people generally aren't perfect and they forget to remove things from their pockets, their carry ons, etc. Here in Orlando alot of parents "Forget" that the plastic souveneer sword won't be allowed as carry on. People aren't always sure what constitutes a "paste" or a liquid.

So, yes, millions of dollars of items are confiscated every year because of the dangers posed by plastic swords and half empty bottles of filtered water. And yes, folks do occasionally forget to retrieve their laptop as they are running to catch the plane that this senseless slap and tickle caused them to miss.

[MineralMan]

49. Of course I can imagine that, and I've had to abandon a couple

of things. My wife once forgot that she had a little portable corkscrew in the bottom of her purse that we bought on a previous trip. She was embarrassed by it when her purse got searched, and she gladly abandoned it. Those are allowed now. I've had to abandon lighters during the time that lighters were prohibited. Now, they're OK again. I check the TSA site every trip to see what's on the list.

Further, I start my travel day with empty pockets, so I'm aware what I put in them. I also pack now only after completely emptying every compartment of my carry-on luggage, so I make certain that stuff I've jammed in there between trips isn't going to raise an alarm. I'm not perfect, but I'm experienced and don't like surprises. The whole pocketknife thing has been in place for a long time now. I wouldn't risk my favorite old stockman's knife. It's too valuable. I pack a different pocketknife that isn't so valuable in my checked bag, just in case my luggage is lost.

Inexperienced travelers most definitely end up leaving things at the airport security screening. I watch them do it every time I fly. There are signs everywhere at the airport about what's prohibited, but most people never read signs. So, yes, there are always people with stuff they have to abandon, or take somewhere and mail home. It's unfortunate, but travel these days takes some preparation before heading to the airport.

The last time we took my wife's 82-year-old mom to the airport, we did our usual check of her purse and carry-on, with her permission, of course. Nothing in there. So, off we went to the airport, way ahead of time, as usual. Before we left, I thought about asking her if she had her driver's licence and boarding pass, but didn't, because I didn't want to imply that she might have forgotten it. She forgot it. It was in one of those clever holders you wear around your neck, and she had left it at home. So, we drove back to her house and back to the airport (about 40 minutes, round trip), still in plenty of time for her to make her flight. Sure. People forget all sorts of things. There it is.

Planning ahead is the answer. Arriving at the airport in time to cover all contingencies is important. If everything goes smoothly, you can have breakfast, lunch, or a beverage in one of the restaurants or browse the shops. If there's an issue that causes a delay, there's still time to make your flight. Planning keeps you from being rushed, and makes the whole experience a lot more pleasant. At least, that's what I've found.

[zipplewrath]

63. No stupid rules is the answer

It isn't the purpose of government to create some sort of regular test for us all to pass.

The vast majority of the rules are pointless. They confiscate huge amounts of water, none of which they consider "dangerous" (which is why it jut goes into blue barrels and thrown out with the rest of the trash) all as part of an effort to create the illusion that they are "doing something". They could merely "check" the water to ensure it wasn't actually an explosive. So instead they just "ban" it. Clear bag? Just makes it easier for them, not us. Plastic swords? They don't want to have to hire people smart enough to tell the difference between a toy one and a real one.

This isn't "necessary" by any stretch. I can make all manner of rules, it doesn't make them useful.

[MineralMan]

69. I did not say that all the rules make sense or that they

are practical. Your water thing is a good example. Testing bottles of water would materially slow down the security screening process. I don't carry water through security. I buy a bottle inside the secure area. I already have enough stuff to take through security. They have a rule against carrying water through security. So, I don't do that. It doesn't really inconvenience me, so let them. Yes, the clear bag makes it easier for them, but it also makes it easier for me by speeding up the line ahead of me. I don't carry any liquids or gels, so I don't bother with that. When I buy my bottle of water in the secure area, I usually buy a bottle of hand sanitizer, and any other stuff, like toothpaste, I may need, assuming I'm traveling to a place that won't have those things.

Yes, some of the rules defy explanation. I suppose someone thinks they're important enough to continue them. Some have been changed. You can take your corkscrew and your nail clippers and your lighter through now. The liquid thing was to prevent binary explosives from being brought onto planes, and the size limit for liquids was based on practical information about how those binary explosives work. The liquid and gel ban was based on actual threats that were discovered. Inconvenient? Sure. In a major way? No, not really.

I don't carry plastic swords, but I'll certainly agree that's a stupid rule.

[zipplewrath]

144. You've said this many different ways

"I buy a bottle inside the secure area."

Yet you wonder why I say this is costing us millions.

[krabigirl]

84. Lucky you. I have had laptops stolen, as well as many other things.

[Rebubula]

15. Much ado about not much

I have been flying a good bit lately and have not seen any of the 'oppressive' behavior that has been so widely reported.

The TSA agents are the same doofuses and Rent-a-Cops that they have always been. You know what you are dealing with so act accordingly.

Some people go looking for drama and find it. I keep my head down and mouth shut since it is not a big deal...to me. I try to achieve a Zen State of Indifference to the goings on around me in situations like airport security checks. It makes life so much more bearable if you do not try to fight everything that happens around you.

Some things deserve a fight - some things need to be ignored or tolerated.


I know...bring on the haters that want to make a poutrage out of everything and accuse me of rolling over to the 'Man'.

[MineralMan]

29. I agree with you. I try to keep smiling through these

screenings and do my usual "thank yous" when a service is rendered. That seems to work pretty well. The TSA people at MSP, my home airport, are among the pleasantest I've encountered anywhere. At LAX, it's a little more impersonal, but efficient and professional. I haven't encountered any unprofessional behavior at any airport since security screenings began long ago. I know others have different experiences, but that's mine.

[TheWatcher]

86. If you encountered any unprofessional behavior that other have experienced, would your "opinion"

change?

Or is all of this fine and good as long as you don't have any negative effects from it.

You're such a good, perfect, responsible, and compliant citizen of course, that this would NEVER happen, but let's just say hypothetically, you know, for fun.

If you were subjected to some of the horror stories that "others", not perfect citizens, like yourself, have experienced, would you still defend this stuff so vigorously?

[MineralMan]

89. I don't deal in hypotheticals. I've never seen anything like that

on any of my travels, and certainly have not had anything like that happen to me. In some cases, what we see on YouTube videos is not what the person described in words. We have a recent case like that posted here on DU. What I've seen at airports has been a normal, orderly flow through the security screening process, with a few cases where someone had something that wasn't allowed. I've never seen any misconduct by TSA workers.

That is not to say it doesn't occur. I'm sure it does and has. Pretty much anything is bound to have occurred in a system that process so many people on a daily basis and has so many employees. I have not observed any thing out of the ordinary, though. If I did, I'd react to that based on what I saw or experienced.

[TheWatcher]

94. Nice Dodge.

So it appears as long as nothing happens to YOU, everything is fine.

But please, Mineral Man, answer the question.

Would you change your opinion if the same or similar horror stories happened to you, that has happened to others.

I'm glad that things in your Bubble World haven't given you any reason to stop loving Big Brother, but please, humor me.

This is great spin, some of the best I've seen in awhile, but let's keep this simple.

Answer the question, please.

[MineralMan]

104. I would change my opinion of the person who carried out that

"horror story." I would not, however, spread the blame beyond that particular situation. I tend to weigh individual incidents, either good or bad, against the rest of my experience. I cannot, however, imagine that such a think will happen to me, nor has it ever. I'm polite. I comply with all of the TSA rules. I just don't stand out amongst all the other travelers. I can think of no reason that I would provoke any such incident.

Now, that does not preclude the possibility that I may encounter some jerk in a TSA uniform. So far, they've all been very professional, but there are bad characters in every walk of life. Should that occur, I will react in whatever way will best deal with the actual situation. That's what I always do - react to situations as they occur.

I don't suppose that answer will satisfy you, but that's my answer. I would consider any such incident to be an exception to my previous experience, which is quite extensive. I would take it as an exception.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[musette_sf]

21. Well, if it doesn't bother you,

think of half the human race, and minor children, especially sex crime survivors, who now have to suffer through a sex assault crime to get on a plane.

I'm sorry, but it's a fact that men are desensitized to public nudity and genital touching, at least the men around my age or older are. You're naked in locker rooms, and the Selective Service has groped your nads in the name of G-d and country. Men might not like petty wielders of authority, exercising their potential for being an asshole, being the actors in these activities. But overall, men are socialized to take this in stride. Women are not. And children should never even be in this equation.

I'm a relatively open minded old hippie broad, who honestly couldn't care less from a sex crime perspective if my early 50s model chassis gets nude-o-scoped and second-base (outside the clothing) groped. But when young attractive women are specifically singled out for special nude-o-scope attention; when children who are just beginning to understand "good touch/bad touch" are subjected to what amounts to predator grooming of children to accept sexual assault by a pedophile (and the parent is forced to aid and abet the assault on the child) and when sex assault survivors are forced into a PTSD trigger experience - you cannot use your personal view on this violation of person and privacy to exempt you from concern about your fellow citizens.

As for the health concerns, UCSF, a leading academic partner in oncology research, has documented their concerns about the safety of the backscatter scanners. That's sufficient for me to disbelieve the government propaganda on their putative "safety".

Is it going to finally take some radical right-wing religious cult to successfully challenge legalized sexual assault and radiation exposure? Is it going to be some Mormon or Dominionist who finally forces the issue? After reading your post, I'm beginning to think that some of my fellow progressives are closet libertarians.

[Rebubula]

30. No...

...just choosing my battles.

Perhaps you are correct and it is due to me being a guy and desensitized - who knows? I am just expressing my personal views on the matter.

I campaign for gay rights, have long been a clinic defender in the DC area and worked for Bill Clinton's campaign on both elections. I am no libertarian. Maybe demeaning me for my views help you feel better about yours...not sure.

A person is allowed to have a personal opinion about something. I am sorry that I do not see this as sexual assault. I see it as overbearing and not giving us any real safety - but sexual assault, No.

[dionysus]

125. i'm pretty sure you only get frisked if you refuse to go through the scanner.

i've only flown from rochester ny to chicago and denver, but no one was doing pat downs...

[musette_sf]

133. That is usually correct.

So a person who declines a backscatter scanner (for, IMHO, good reason due to oncology scientists' concerns about their dangers) will get the "enhanced patdown".

Many first-hand accounts state that for passengers who decline the scanner, the "patdown" is much more aggressive than the standard procedure. The TSA agents also attempt to intimidate the decliners by way of loudly announcing opt-outs in a demeaning and confrontational manner, as if the passengers have committed a crime by opting out.

And if that person is a minor child or a sexual assault survivor, the "enhanced patdown", especially when it is performed in a highly confrontational and aggressive manner, simply because the person exercised their rights, can trigger PTSD reactions with lasting impact.

[dionysus]

140. thanks for explaining that. i haven't flown enough to see these scenarios myself.

[LostInAnomie]

23. Meh... I don't really give a shit.

I'll fly, and go through the pat downs or screenings if I have to. Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

[Catherina]

24. Color me surprised. Epic Fail. n/t

[MineralMan]

34. My opinion. Your opinion.

See my signature line. DU is all about sharing opinions. Thanks for your reply.

[Forkboy]

148. A shocking OP to be sure lol.

[FLPanhandle]

39. I fly all the time for work and vacations. I'll continue to fly for work & vacations.

Do I like the machines? No.
Do I think they make flying safer? No.
Do I think they are dangerous for my health? Compared to flying, no.
Are they an invasion of privacy? Yes, but so was pre 9/11 security. So is every security scanning.

However, I'm not turning myself into a hermit and my one chance to see the world before I die because of a blurry picture of me naked.

I understand some people view this as a bigger deal than I do. So be it. I have issues I view as a big deal that they may not consider as important too. We all have our priorities and choose our own battles.

[msanthrope]

46. A very thought-provoking OP.

I don't fly as much as I used to simply because I prefer the train. Always have.

[MineralMan]

53. Thanks. That was the idea. I expressed my opinion,

which I do pretty frequently. Lots of people have responded and expressed their opinion. So far, it's all been pretty civil. That's how it's supposed to work. Thanks for your reply.

[TheWatcher]

47. Benjamin Franklin said it best.....

And you sir, deserve neither.

[MineralMan]

50. And, yet, I have both. My liberties are as yet uninfringed.

I still have all of them. None of our liberties are without limits. None.

[TheWatcher]

56. "There ought to be limits to Freedom."- George W. Bush.

No sir, you are quite willing to give yours up in order to have your Convenience and Comfort preserved.

And I find that sad and pathetic.

I should hope the rest of the population isn't as eager to "go-along" as you are.

[MineralMan]

58. Which ones am I giving up?

You say I'm giving up my liberties. Which ones?

[MineralMan]

74. Actually, the bulk of the population has the same opinion as I do.

Go to the airport next Wednesday. See all the people who are going through security so they can fly somewhere. Every flight is full. So, as I said, most people simply don't care enough about these rules to stop traveling, and next Wednesday, almost every person taking a flight is taking that flight voluntarily, since nobody in his or her right mind would fly that day on business. It's all voluntary travel, pretty much, on that day. That's why this protest will be a complete failure.

People are going to gramma's house. They consider that an important trip. They'll fly.

Now, if the planes weren't full, you might have a point. But, they are full. They're full almost all the time. That will continue. Flying is how you go long distances in a reasonable amount of time.

[TheWatcher]

76. If your "opinion" has even a hint of truth to it, then they deserve as much freedom and security as

you do.

None.

[Gormy Cuss]

120. They're full because the airlines are flying fewer trips.

I suspect that next week is going to be a bigger hell than usual for a holiday because it will be the first time many of these passengers experience the new scanner/pat down dance.

[Forkboy]

149. The bulk of the population also thought war in Iraq was a good thing.

[TexasObserver]

48. We have civil liberties because others don't share your approach.

[MineralMan]

52. Which liberties have I given up?

I can't think of one. None of our liberties are without limits of some kind. All are qualified by those limitations. I can't think of any of our liberties that I cannot exercise.

[TexasObserver]

85. I'm not going to give you a tutorial on Constitutional Law.

Your OP states clearly that you do not mind being groped or going through machines that undress you, and you don't mind the whole intrusion by TSA agents.

Fortunately, America has a long history of people who do find intrusive conduct by the government objectionable. There are always people who meekly go along with whatever they're told to do. That doesn't make them right or admirable. It makes them compliant.

[MineralMan]

91. OK. Thanks for letting me know.

Yes. My OP states exactly what it states. That is my opinion. Yours differs. That's what we're discussing.

You consider me meek. I'm hardly that. I comply with the current TSA regulations. I choose to do so. You may choose otherwise. Choices are like opinions that way.

[TheWatcher]

100. Who are you, and what have you done with my favorite nemesis?

Your assessment, at least on this particular subject, could NOT be more spot on.

:thumbsup:

[TexasObserver]

156. hehe

[Initech]

55. Anyone who's willing to sacrifice freedom and liberty for security doesn't deserve either.

[MineralMan]

61. Which liberties have I sacrificed?

I keep asking that, and nobody, so far, has bothered to answer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Read the Fourth Ammendment

And this is security theater...it might make you feel safer, but it isn't.

[TheWatcher]

65. Hope you have a good supply of dramamine, nadin.

The forthcoming spin should be dizzying.

[MineralMan]

68. The key word is "unreasonable."

I don't have to read the amendment. I know it by heart, as I know the entire Bill of Rights.

It is your opinion that this is security theater. My opinion is different from your. The definition of "unreasonable," has been tested already with regard to airport searches. As I said earlier, none of our liberties are without limits. The word "unreasonable," is that limit. You don't believe that airport security searches are reasonable. That is your opinion. My opinion differs from yours, as does judicial opinion.

The judiciary is also part of the Constitution. You may not like that, but, again, that is your opinion.

I have an opinion. You have a different one. See my signature line.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. My opinion is informed by experience in security

Services and actual knowledge in the field...and the scanners have not been tested in courts. Metal detectors have. Those are effective for a level of threat. These things were sold due to the undie bomber and they don't work very well for that either. It makes you feel better, we get it. Read some Franklin...

[MineralMan]

77. Thanks for the suggestion. I have read every word Ben Franklin

ever wrote. It's been some time, but I have a very good memory. One of the pieces of advice I've always followed of his was to "never use venery."

The scanners are riding along with the metal detector decision. Of course, someone could file a suit to prohibit them. What do you suppose the outcome would be? I'm pretty certain they'd be found to be reasonable search. Has anyone filed such a suit?

I don't have your experience in security. I'm just a consumer, so I'll bow to your expertise with regard to that subject.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. The ACLU will

And they are beyond reasonable.

[MineralMan]

81. Has the ACLU filed such a suit? Do you have a link?

They'd be a great group to do so, but I haven't heard of any such suit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Cause your media don't care

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-sues-dhs-over-unlawful-tsa-searches-and-detention

[MineralMan]

119. Thank you. That doesn't appear to have to do with the scanners or

"enhanced body searches" though. It's on another matter. It's still very interesting, though, and I'll certainly follow it. In the days when I was selling mineral specimens to collectors, I used to travel to mineral shows to purchase stock for my business. Business was conducted at those shows in cash almost exclusively, so sometimes I'd travel with up to $10,000 in $100 bills. I'd come back with boxes full of specimens. Normally I drove to the shows, but sometimes I did fly to the show and drive a rental vehicle home. So, this case interests me.

I don't think that this case, however, will have any impact on search methods, per se. It seems to be aimed at the results of such a search and whether the TSA can hold someone for carrying a sum of money. That's a different issue, I think.

Let me know if you hear of any case involving the scanners or new body search rules. That would be pertinent to this discussion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. Today they said they're going

And this will probably fold into the case.

Reality is TSA is engaged in theater... And it is about the corruption at the highest levels of government. Always Follow the Money...

[MineralMan]

122. Yes, I know that's your belief. I haven't seen any evidence to

support that, though. It's something people keep saying, but not backing up with solid information. If you have such information, I'd be happy to go look at it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. The evidence is out there if you go search for it

Who owns the machines? The former head of DHS one Michael Chertoff.

The machines don't work as advertised, security officers in places with actual higher threat levels have even stated such.

Those are just two of the dots. Reality is you feel safe, so it matters little what you are shown. Me I prefer flying out of AICM than any airport in the US. Yes they still engage in some theater, but most of it is not. Lindbergh, on the other hand, is theater.

[Mimosa]

155. Thanks for the ACLU link, Nadia

Glad they're keeping up the good fight. :)

[TheWatcher]

72. So at what point does it become unreasonable in your "opinion"?

Just how far would you like to see this whole thing go?

Public, Full, Naked Cavity Searches OK for you?

Groping of 12 year-old's genitals work for your "convenience?"

Cavity Searches of infants to make sure nathan Junior doesn't have a dirty bomb in his dirty diaper?

How far does your fantasy of eternal false comfort need to be coddled before it's "unreasonable."

I mean, our liberties must have limits, but not the Police State that's keeping you "safe" from the invisible bogeyman, right?

[MineralMan]

75. It's not a matter of how far I'd like to see it go.

That's not my call. If it goes too far, I'll stop flying. That's my choice. If it goes to far, people will stop flying, and it will change.

I'm discussing the current situation. If those other things become the current situation, then we can have another discussion. I don't predict the future.

[TheWatcher]

78. How far would it have to go?

Even a good little citizen like you must have SOME limitation of what is too far?

Come on, Mineral Man.

Tell all of us hysterical kooks what your line in the sand is.

How far does your vigilant defense of The Police State go?

[MineralMan]

80. I have called nobody a "hysterical kook."

Of course I have a limit. I would not consent to cavity searches without a warrant or arrest. I don't think that's in the cards, though. I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but that would stop me from flying. I imagine I'll continue to fly, though. Cavity searches are truly invasive, and have the real potential to cause bodily harm. Some say this backscatter stuff could cause cancer, but it's so much less than the exposure from even a short flight that I don't consider it a real threat.

Thanks for asking. But, please don't put words in my mouth, if you don't mind. I do not call other DUers names on DU.

[TheWatcher]

83. No, but you like to refer to people with tattoos as "morons."

Or was that just a slip?

My wife has a tattoo of Bat Wings on her back.

Should she be detained from her flight next week as well?

Would that be "reasonable" for you?

Is she a "moron", too?

[MineralMan]

88. Actually, I like tattoos. My wife has one...a small blue dolphin

on her forearm. The tattoo I was talking about was one that spelled out ATOM BOMB on the man's fingers. I said that HE was a moron, not anyone else with a tattoo. I would say the same for anyone who had words tattooed on their fingers like that.

I'm sure your wife's tattoo is very nice. So's the one my wife has. I don't have a tattoo.

You've stretched my words and my meaning. I wish you wouldn't do that. I was very specific, and did not say anything about tattoos in general.

[TheWatcher]

92. I'm sure my best friend, who has her girlfriend's name tattooed on her ring finger, would think you

you were a swell guy for thinking that.

So, ANYONE with tattoos of words on their fingers is a "moron".

Well, you're at least selective in your prejudice toward others.

Thanks for that clarifying that.

Enjoy your comfort Bubble.

And when the day comes you actually state the Police State has gone too far, that will be an interesting day indeed.

I personally hope we don't ever reach the limits of what someone like you thinks is unreasonable.

I have a feeling none of us want to live in a country like that.

Maybe, I'm wrong, but I think you'd still probably defend it.

[MineralMan]

95. You're wrong, but I probably can't convince you of that.

As for your best friend, I doubt that her tattoo is big block letters across all four fingers. I'm sure her tattoo is very nice. I'm talking about jailhouse-style tattoos. A common one says LOVE HATE on the two hands. There are others, that use obscenities. I also said about that man on the plane that he shouldn't be removed from the plan, and he wasn't. He continued on to his destination. Even morons have the right to travel. The person who tattled on him was a moron, too, as I said.

I've edited my previous post. What I meant to say is that I don't call other DUers morons or other names on DU. I reserve the right to call teabaggers morons, though, along with really stupid people of all stripes. I won't call another DUer that, though. I should have made myself more clear.

We seem to be at an impasse in this thread, and this subthread is no longer about the topic of the thread. So, I'll stop posting in this subthread. Thanks for your participation in the thread, though.

[TheWatcher]

97. And Thank you for such textbook examples of Spin 101.

It was illuminating, for sure.

[MineralMan]

105. You may consider it to be spin. It is, however, nothing more than

my opinion.

[Caretha]

154. I find several things regarding

the new TSA security enhancement rules unreasonable and what I would also classify as inappropriate without any real "safety benefit". I'm not going to mention all of them in this post, just a couple.

The "biggies" for me have to do with age appropriateness for minors and especially female adolescents.

1) Enhanced patting down of children, infant to 8 - This is far to invasive a procedure for the mental health and well being of very minor citizens of the US. It provides zero more security and can cause unnecessary trauma. As a good mother, I would feel that I had been very negligent in my duty toward her children, if I stood by and let that happen to them on purpose, (I also would not want them to have the alternate procedure of scanning happen to them).

2) Young females, 9 to 17, should never be touched by strangers anywhere near their sex organs, be it their loins, crotch or breasts. Nor should their bodies be viewed by strangers. BTW, I've looked at the new images these machines produce and "fuzzy images" does not describe them any more.


I'm not an expert on whether the radiation in these scanning machines are dangerous or could have ill affects on my children's health in the future, but it is not my right as their parent to expose them to those possibilities, but it is my duty as the parent to protect them from these sort of possible dangers, especially when the jury is still out regarding how safe they are.

Now, I get your point about having the choice as an adult to give up some of my liberties in order to fly. I'm all for reasonable precautions, but some of it has gone way to far, ie, lighters, corkscrews etc. The push to use and intimidate people to use the scanners via enhanced pat downs is pretty damn obnoxious to me. It seems obvious that this is just another way for greedy people and corporations to push their agenda on the US populace to make a whole whole lot of money. The machines did not keep hijackers from taking over a plane in the US in the last 9 years, so there is no reasonable evidence to show that they are necessary now. Cost vs gain MUST be taken into account.

You as an adult white male have much less to lose by acquiescing to these type of procedures other than your dignity and a few of your "liberties", but there are a whole lot more of "others" out there who have quite a bit to lose. The whole equation of this cannot be looked at from your "narrow MM point-of-view" and equal any real type of conclusion that makes this okay constituionally or otherwise. That isn't the way the universe rocks, although that might be news to you.

[treestar]

71. This really has nothing to do with that

It is not being suspected of a crime, it is trying to prevent a crime.

It's a "liberty" to not be afraid your flight will be blown up. People put up with this stuff thinking of it that way. When bad stuff happens, you immediately have people blaming others than those who did it and insisting they could have prevented it.

And profiling is worse. It is odd that some are recommending that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. The Israelis, or for that matter the Mexico city airport staff,

Are not doing racial profiling. They ask pointed questions of all passengers and they check hand luggage of all passengers. That works better and could even pass legal muster the same way metal detectors did...

[sally cat]

99. The TSA's SPOT personnel do not interact with passengers but merely observe. Isn't that where it

falls apart? They should be the ones checking the ticket/boarding pass and ID and conversing with passengers at the entrance to security.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. It should start before you reach the counter

And it might be happening in not so obvious ways...but the interaction should start before you get to the counter.

It is personnel intensive though.

[MineralMan]

123. Actually, it does begin before you reach the counter. Today, when

you book a flight, you supply your full name (no middle initial) and your birthdate. That lets a name check take place long before you ever go to the airport and differentiates you from others who share all or part of your name. For people like me, who have a name shared by thousands of people in this country, including the middle initial, it's a big help. Even if some other person with my name is a felon, or has some other reason for the TSA to take a closer look, I'm distinguished from such a person.

What that means is that the security code on my boarding pass reflects that I have no criminal record, I'm a frequent flyer and not someone who needs more than ordinary attention. This speeds up the security screening pretty dramatically, since you arrive there already pre-screened.

So, security screening starts the moment you book your flight. It reaches its conclusion when you go through the airport screening. Then...you fly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Yes, that's the first layer.

I am talking of the second layer. Again, before you reach the counter.

[MineralMan]

128. Can you explain in a bit more detail? I'm not sure I see

what process you're describing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. Security personnel paying attention to behavior cues

And contacting you and talking to you before you reach the counter if warranted.

That is one of the ahem holes exploited a few times already, like the guns used against the El Al counter at LAX a few years ago.

Airports abroad have personnel that do this in both uniformed and non uniformed ways. Here it mostly starts at the line for TSA screening.

There are a few other holes, one of them, in fact, was exploited with the cartridge bombs. And that one is in the sterile area.

[MineralMan]

134. I'm not sure they aren't doing this already.

I'm not sure they are, either. I see some TSA people around in the check-in areas at the MSP airport. We also have to hand-carry our checked bag to the xray machine, and there are a couple of people there, too. I think some of this is going on at least at some airports. At LAX, they frequently stop cars that are coming into the departure level area before they get to the airport itself. I've been caught in that once. Normally, though, I have a rental car and ride the rental car companies bus to the check-in area, so I skip that level of checks.

Again, I'm not sure what's in place and what's not, and I imagine that's by design.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. It takes a trained eye

One exception is Honolulu, only because it is shared with the AF.

Also LAX reacted to these things. That is the major complaint, they are not pro-active...

[krabigirl]

82. Well, i used to be a very avid traveller, by air. Not anymore.

Ever since the liquids ban, really, it just hasn't been worth it for me. I also think it is a huge waste of resources, so i only fly when absolutely necessary. I am glad you still fly, though. Your choice.

However, dhs plans to use the machines as primary screening after 2013. In addition, they want to roll them out at concerts, sporting events, clubs, and they already plan to have roving vans with nude scanners in them. So basically, if no one protests this now, it will be everywhere. Scary thought.

[Lucian]

93. Read Ben Franklin's quote on liberty and freedom.

I can't even believe we're having this discussion on this website. What's it going to take for people to stand up and say enough is enough? I don't want to be fucking groped, molested, and backscattered at the airport, in the name of national security, just to enjoy the sites of Europe. If you're going to, fine. Liberties don't mean much to you then. But they mean a lot to me, and I'm willing to defend my right to privacy.

[TheWatcher]

103. But he claims he's read every WORD Franklin ever wrote.

I guess some of it was just "quaint" and irrelevant.

[MineralMan]

106. And so I have. I see you're talking about me, rather than the

topic. Yes, I have read every word Ben Franklin ever published. And some of it was quaint and irrelevant. He wrote some silly things, and didn't always behave as he suggested others behave, either. He was quite the rake, especially when traveling in Europe. And yet, he counseled that people not "use venery."

Like many of his peers, he combined a brilliant mind with some not so brilliant behavior. He's a great subject to study, through his writings and through writings about him. One of the great characters of our Late Colonial, Revolutionary, and post-revolutionary periods. Sometimes he was a contradictory character, as we all are sometimes. He also had a great sense of humor, and some unusual habits. As I said, a real character, one well worth the time to study.

And like everyone, he said things with which I disagree. He was not a deity. He was exactly who he was, and that's quite enough to make him an important historical figure and very much a part of what this country became at its founding. It's all very interesting.

[TheWatcher]

110. And there is one particular passage you definitely seem to be at odds with.

Like I said, you deserve neither.

[MineralMan]

113. Actually, I've already addressed that. I've lost none of my liberties.

All liberties have limits. Most often, those limits are included in the Constitution. Am I more secure? I don't know. Do I fly? Yes, and I am searched in what I consider to be a reasonable way. I've lost no liberties.

[lonestarnot]

96. Recommending. Did it take?

[MineralMan]

98. That doesn't matter. The thread has been active, and there has been

lots of discussion of my opinion on the matter. That's a good thing. It's been reasonably civil, too, proving that civility is possible, even when there is broad disagreement. That's encouraging to me.

[lonestarnot]

107. Keep on truck'n mineral man. Or flying as that is your preference.

:thumbsup:

[Joe Fields]

101. I am more worried about the safety of the jet, and the amount of hours

the pilot has flown recently, than I am of someone fondling my junk.

[MineralMan]

111. Yah, there is that, for sure. I've had a few harrowing flights, due

to equipment problems. I don't enjoy those flights as much as the uneventful ones. We did an exciting flaps up landing at MSP on a Northwestern flight that had the passengers pretty darned excited as we orbited while the pilot tried to lower the flaps, to the tune of some loud banding noises as a screw drive nut banged on the stripped threads. I wasn't that concerned, because a no-flaps landing is a standard training deal, and MSP has a really, really long runway.

Then there was the flight into Cedar Rapids in a thunderstorm, where the port wingtip made contact with the tarmac as the plane lurched to port as we touched down. The sparks were not particularly a calming sight. But, I was probably the only one who saw them, since I'm an inveterate window watcher.

I was on a flight that had a near miss with a crossing aircraft once while holding for a landing at JFK. The separation was only about 50 feet. Again, I got to enjoy that excitement out the window, while everyone else was unaware.

There have been other incidents involving equipment. Nothing at the airports though. That's been pretty routine all along, since my first flight in 1965.

[Greyhound]

108. Death by a thousand cuts. This attitude is very obedient and how we got here.

In only two generations we have gone from liberty with problems, but the moving toward equality and more liberty, to a police state where probable cause, the whole 4th for that matter, is merely some arcane legalese that is only occasionally given lip service when it is not being attacked as inappropriate for the "post 9/11 world".

Buy hey, I'm sure it's no big deal...
:eyes:

Oh yes, :kick: & U

[MineralMan]

114. As you probably have surmised, I disagree with your opinion.

And there it is.

[dionysus]

126. why you... you... authoritarian... you... workin for the Man...

;)

[MineralMan]

129. Hmm...the only man I know of that I'm working for is myself.

And he pays crap wages. Long hours, too, and no freaking vacation. I'd quit, but then what would I do? :rofl:

[dionysus]

139. but "MineralMan" contains the word "Man"... which is capitalized...

a secret signal?!!1 :D
:hi:

[jpgray]

132. It remains a choice only for those who are not forced to do it, and are okay with it. Like you

What of those who have neither luxury? It's fine that you have these opinions that the scanning is harmless, and very pleasant that you can choose to fly or not on a whim, but what of those who don't agree with you? Who have no such choice?

In some ways it's like parental notification for abortion. There's a world of difference between a teen who conceived consensually, whose parents are loving and understanding, and a teen who is pregnant due to incest or rape, whose parents are abusive and supremely authoritarian. To the first, there is no significant limitation on liberty via parental notification--it can be almost a formality. But to the second?

[Synnical]

136. Very interesting thread. Thank all of you, very much!

Wow, actual discourse on DU again!

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale who won't be flying until next Spring to visit my mother in Calif.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

137. I hope all this business with TSA will hurt them in the wallet.

Me thinks if you piss off your customers too much, then you need go out of business.

[Steely_Dan]

138. Every Time We give Up...

one of our freedoms, the terrorists win.

[HelenWheels]

141. It's about money not security (and don't forget just scaring the hell out of people)

the company that makes these invasive machines are making a killing. If it was really about security they would use dogs trained to alert to different dangers.

The whole 3 ounce bullshit is proof, if you take all the different or same bottles of 3 ounce liquid and dump them in the handy quart bag you could create quite a concoction. Not to mention the how handy and very sharp a half a CD makes (and they are fairly easy to break).

[ProdigalJunkMail]

142. to all of you saying 'choose your way to travel'

are completely uninformed about the way the world does business. sometimes you must be there in a time that can only be achieved via a flight. don't give me this 'take the train' crap. i don't have 4 days to go from ATL to SFO...i have to be there tomorrow. but i guess i should just quit my work...that'll solve the problem.

just because YOU don't have to fly doesn't mean that others don't. most of us don't have enough time to get to even grandma's house for the holidays without flying because of the distances involved...so i guess it is ok for my daughters to get groped or pictured effectively naked.

bugger off...the lot of you!

sP

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ikonoklast]

146. OP stated none of what you accused him of.

[Vinca]

145. After all the scanning and poking and prodding and searching at the gate,

you can sit comfortably on the plane and wonder about what might be in the baggage compartment below.

[SeattleGirl]

147. Yeah, I wish they would step up the scanning of cargo items.

The TSA may feel justified in using these new techniques on passengers, but I wonder when they are going to start doing more thorough screening of the items that go into the belly of the plane.

[boppers]

150. Guess what gets more publicity?

For every 3 bucks spent on the new scanning of people, they're spending 7 bucks on new scanning of cargo.

Suitcases don't take iPhone videos and blog about it, make forum posts, and go on TV shows though.

[Desertrose]

151. Yup, you are giving up liberty to the TSA.

Your title says it all. If that's what you want to do, then good for you....but I think you are deliberately missing the point of the title of your post.

As Greyhound said...death by a thousand cuts.

Frogs are in the pot and the water is getting a might too warm - pretty hard not to miss it.

[Bonobo]

153. Some people will always stubbornly defend

themselves against the tyranny of cognitive dissonance.

[asdjrocky]

157. It's all BS.

They are trying to scare us just like the bushies. None of this extra security stuff does anything if the cargo area is not checked.

More bullshit from the USA.

[Bluenorthwest]

158. The bogus, expensive form of security theater they practice

needs to be replaced by actual security. I've been traveling the world since I was a kid, so there is not a security process I have not been through. I've been to 'iron curtain' countries, countries at war, you name it. I've spent hours in wee rooms, been frisked many times in front of other passengers, the works. I've been profiled according to ethnic background, and told that such was the fact.
What the TSA does is a waste of time and money. It makes us less safe, not more safe. It also makes look like stooges and idiots to our international peers. Like frightened little kids.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

159. There is no safe level of ionizing (x-rays) radiation and is a proven human cancer causing agent:

Mar 29, 2010 ... Ionizing radiation is a proven human carcinogen (cancer causing agent). ... But there is no threshold below which ionizing radiation is thought to be totally safe

Sources of ionizing radiation
People may be exposed to ionizing radiation from 3 main sources:

•Natural background radiation comes from cosmic rays from our solar system and radioactive elements normally present in the soil. This is the major contributor to worldwide radiation exposure.
•Medical radiation comes in the form of diagnostic x-rays and other tests, as well as from radiation therapy. Radiation therapy is currently used to treat some types of cancer and involves dosages many thousand times higher than those used in diagnostic x-rays.
•Non-medical, man-made radiation can come from workplace and other sources, and is also a result of above ground nuclear weapons testing that took place before 1962.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/MedicalTreatments/radiation-exposure-and-cancer