Someone needs to sue the TSA

[lisaparadise]

That's Lisa, always giving a very nuanced and mature argument.

oh ya get angry with me see if i care

[lisaparadise]

Really now? That's how you roll? You can't even respect the opposition opinion? *sigh*

You don't have to like my opinion, but I'm going to tell you: I know I don't have to fly, but if I must I will make sure I waste as much TSA manpower as possible as a show of passive resistance. They're going to have to search me three times by the time I'm done fucking with them. And yes, I will continue to complain about the policy, because believe you me, if enough people do, the policy will change.

~BB~

just because we agree to disagree i still value your opinions as everyone elses and i love you to death id just rather be safe is all.

[BellaBellucci]

just because we agree to disagree i still value your opinions as everyone elses and i love you to death id just rather be safe is all.

I can live with that. But I WILL make those TSA agents work for their money. And I intend to put the footage on Xtube because I guarantee it'll be a HAWT fucking show!

~BB~

[thombergeron]

Unfortunately, though, the security theater provided by the TSA does nothing to keep us safe. That's why it's so galling that, in order to fly, we must sacrifice our dignity and privacy. In exchange for that sacrifice, all we get is a mirage.

Oh, and it costs a ton of money, too. TSA's budget appropriation for 2010 is $7.8 billion. Over $3 billion of that are just for the checkpoints -- passenger and baggage screening -- and $219 million just for the backscatter machines.

With regard to privacy, there is at least one lawsuit pending against the TSA seeking to block deployment of the backscatter machines. Given that a number of commenters on this board appear unaware that the 4th and 9th amendments are, in fact, part of the Constitution, I'm going to go ahead and wait to see how this one plays out in the courts. Shocking to imagine that the federal government might implement a policy that later turned out to be unconstitutional, but certainly stranger things have happened.

But ultimately, the problem is that airport screening is a bad joke. It's stupid and pointless. Everybody already knows that the scanners can't see in body cavities, so bad guys can just put stuff in their mouths or their butts. And Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic made the chilling point that if somebody has a weapon in the security checkpoint line, it's already too late. Not too many other places you can find 300-400 people all packed into a nice, tight, coiled line.

And I guess the "if you don't like it, don't fly" argument is valid, as long as you don't care about having a U.S. airline industry anymore. Below, the blue plot is the monthly total of U.S. domestic air passengers 1996-2001. The red plot is 2002-2010.

[african1]

And since my layoff in 2008?

Who do you think you are talking to? I've never been layed off. What are you smoking?

I could swear I read you saying somewhere you were living off welfare checks or food stamps or something like this...Really it's nothing to be ashamed of. Don't be

Regarding le mot du jour: "Hors d'ouvre" , Can you correctly pronounce it? Please not in the twisted English accent.

[DaveinBoston]

Who's forcing you into a machine that irradiates your body? Were you dragged from your apartment and thrown into an xray machine?

OR.....

Did you willfully buy an airline ticket allowing you access to a jet owned by a private entity, who's subjecting you to certain steps to fly on that PRIVATELY OWNED PLANE???

I might be 25 more likely to be struct by lightening but if walking through a scanner lessened that chance.... move over... Im in line first.

I love your rationalization:

You: People blow themselves up making meth.
Me: What does that have to do with planes being used as weapons?

You: People die in car accidents. So what? We ban cars?
Me: STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS limit how you drive cars. Speed limits, Age, drinking and driving ect.... is that the government taking away your rights at driving fast or your ability to consume alcohol and monitor yourself being an adult?


You: even the pilots union is against them
Me: Ummm.. I saw the interview with Sullenberger. Pilots are against them for themselves because they would have to go through the scanner more than anyone and many pilots are already deputized to defend the flight deck and carry firearms on board.


You: Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al had forseen the advent of the nudie machines
Me: I love the fact that you tune into the thought processes of these guys.. epecially knowing that they.... with the exception of John Adams all owned slaves... many of them... while they were President of the United States. 4 of the first 5 President... OWNED SLAVES.

But in your mind... they would have outlawed x-ray machines... but to them...and apparently you if you trust their judgement 100%, enslaving another human being was ok??????

How about transsexuals? Do you think they would have welcomed you with open arms or treated you as a freak in women's clothes banning you to the woodshed or worse?

I could keep going with your brilliant comments but I'll let it rest there...

[lisaparadise]

who's forcing you into a machine that irradiates your body? Were you dragged from your apartment and thrown into an xray machine?

Or.....

Did you willfully buy an airline ticket allowing you access to a jet owned by a private entity, who's subjecting you to certain steps to fly on that privately owned plane???

I might be 25 more likely to be struct by lightening but if walking through a scanner lessened that chance.... Move over... Im in line first.

I love your rationalization:

you: People blow themselves up making meth.
me: What does that have to do with planes being used as weapons?

you: People die in car accidents. So what? We ban cars?
me: State and federal laws limit how you drive cars. Speed limits, age, drinking and driving ect.... Is that the government taking away your rights at driving fast or your ability to consume alcohol and monitor yourself being an adult?


you: Even the pilots union is against them
me: Ummm.. I saw the interview with sullenberger. Pilots are against them for themselves because they would have to go through the scanner more than anyone and many pilots are already deputized to defend the flight deck and carry firearms on board.


you: Jefferson, franklin, adams, et al had forseen the advent of the nudie machines
me: I love the fact that you tune into the thought processes of these guys.. Epecially knowing that they.... With the exception of john adams all owned slaves... Many of them... While they were president of the united states. 4 of the first 5 president... Owned slaves.

but in your mind... They would have outlawed x-ray machines... But to them...and apparently you if you trust their judgement 100%, enslaving another human being was ok??????

how about transsexuals? Do you think they would have welcomed you with open arms or treated you as a freak in women's clothes banning you to the woodshed or worse?

i could keep going with your brilliant comments but i'll let it rest there...

roflmfao,good post i love it

[Instrumental]

[DaveinBoston]

I agree with some of what he says but disagree with more of it.

He said what made us safer was putting a gun in the cockpit....putting a gun in the cockpit only keeps the plane from being taken over. It doesnt keep Richard Reid from igniting his shoes and blowing up the plane.

It doesnt keep the Christmas Kid from blowing up his Fruit of the Looms.

Why mention how many soldiers have been killed or how many people have died on our highways?

If you want to bring that up... what are you going to help that?

All you are doing it limiting what the TSA can do... what's your big solution to make the planes safer Mr Paul?

[scroller]

...The only real question in my mind is the heath issue of exposure to the scanning equipment. I don’t have any really reliable information on those heath risks, but whatever they are they need to be compared to and combined with the higher risk of radiation exposure that is associated with flying at high altitudes.

Agree strongly with all your excellent points up to here. As a statistician I'd argue that what the scan-radiation risk (very low) actually needs to be compared to is is the terrorist-attack risk (extremely low); only if the former is a lot lower than the latter does the scanning even theoretically improve one's safety.

The following (pretty funny) cartoon includes the point that the risks are about the same, so scanning can't actually be of any safety benefit. Who actually benefits (following the money) are people like Michael Chertoff, Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security, among whose clients now are Rapiscan (maker of one brand of scanners). So the people who think this increases security have, as usual, been duped.