TSA Is Threatened By Me

By 142 Comments 3,951 views

I've had my encounters with the TSA on a number of occasions. I would be considered a TSA Troll if such a definition existed. I follow their Twitter and have had some back and forth constitutional arguments with them about their ignorance, stupidity, and illegal actions. I'm convinced that since I use my real name and practically DARE them to discriminate against me for my outspokenness that I'm on their pat-down list.

Not long ago, the TSA rightfully recognized that their willful disregard for American civil liberties has given them a black eye that probably won't go away any time soon and started a blog to spin their excuses.

By now, you've probably all seen the latest video of a woman in Phoenix distraught after being molested by the TSA for no reason. If not, here it is:

The video gained quite a bit of play and publicity. As per their standard operating procedures, the TSA rolled out spin its typically innocent response yesterday:

After reviewing this passenger’s time at the checkpoint, we found that our security officers acted properly and neither the CCTV footage nor this YouTube video support any of the allegations levied.

So, the TSA is lying that it DIDN'T fondle an innocent American's breast in the name of “national security” with their typical pat-down. If this is true, no one should have a problem with me going around and just randomly feeling my hands over women's breasts in the name of “national security.” After all, anyone walking down the street could have an explosive breast implant hidden under that C cup!

Well, I went to the blog as I usually do to express my displeasure and left this comment:

While your most-likely-oppressive policy is “under review” TSA agents will continue exceeding your authority and making up crimes for which you will threaten illegal detention of innocent citizens.

I know I left that comment because I copied it and put it as a comment under my link of this post on Facebook as well! Interestingly, the comment never posted. When I left the comment, it would have been the first one. There are now 53+ comments under this post. I even left a comment directly calling out “Concerned Observer” as a TSA plant that was never published.

The TSA is afraid of me because they can't argue with the constitutional argument. Reality and truth make them look bad. They have no problems posting comments by people that are just flying off the handle (which is good), but since most of my comments quote the constitution and various high court decisions that oppose their policies, I guess they've decided it's no longer in their best interests to approve my comments.

Understand that I never use profanity. I don't call them names. I don't use strawman arguments in my responses. I used thoughtful, constitutional, and logical arguments and I don't post anonymously! I've even commented on their blog railing against people who DO post anonymously because they are afraid the TSA will target them. I hate to break it to these people, but the TSA can see EVERYONE'S IP address that comments on their blog! No one is anonymous.

They spew false facts like the low number of complaints they receive about these pat-downs, ignoring the fact that most people either don't have the time to complain or don't think it will do any good to complain! They mention that only 3% of travelers are targeted for the enhanced search techniques while ignoring that they're admitting to violating the 4th amendment rights of that same 3%!! “Hey, we only illegally searched 3% of travelers without a warrant or probably cause, so leave us alone! You don't want another 9/11 do you?!”

And how many terrorists have these searches caught? Zero. The ones you hear about made it successfully through the searches and then failed either at the gate or on the plane. Or they were turned in by concerned passengers! The TSA is just another bloated, inefficient welfare program to employ a certain segment of the population that enjoys fondling Americans genitals and breasts!

zp8497586rq

142 Responses to “TSA Is Threatened By Me”

  1. 102

    retire05

    So Larry, am I now to assume that you no longer wish to debate me? I accepted your apology, and offered mine.

    Perhaps you are more sensitive than warranted.

  2. 103

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @retire05: Life is too short for personal feuds. I don’t spend my time here because I want to fight with people; I spend my time because I want to discuss my points of view on matters which interest me, particularly with people who have opposing points of view, but who can carry on a civil discussion in an atmosphere of mutual respect. As I wrote, however, I’m fine with sarcasm and other forms of criticism directed at arguments, points of view, and citations. But I don’t like talking to people who get into personal name calling.

    We apologized to each other. Or, rather, I apologized for my words and your apologized for my “sensibilities.” But that’s OK. Let’s move on. – Larry W/HB

  3. 104

    retire05

    Larry, I have to admit that I am a bit baffled why someone like you, a physician, would have as much time to spend here as you do. I have a couple of friends who are also physicians (although not general practioners) and I doubt they have the time to post on blogs as you seem to do.

    That said (above was just musings on my part), respect is something that is earned. It is also something that is not important in a forum such as this. Your lack of respect for me has no bearing on my life in any fashion. I am not one of those who seek approval from everyone I encounter.

    But……..perhaps I felt that you could be reasoned with. Risk is not something you can totally negate from your life. You, of all people, should understand that. But to give the government the authority over our private lives is to negate the very ideal of freedom that was paid for with such great blood and treasure.

    I am glad that you have decided to eliminate your name, and town, from your posts. It was a dangerous practice, not one that simply showed you are proud of who you are. And a little surprising coming from one who seems so concerned about their own personal safety that they are willing to abdicate their 4th Amendment rights.

  4. 105

    ilovebeeswarzone

    I sure hope that everyone doesn’t get too conforteble in a AIRPLANE, AS TO FORGET that if somone get up suddenly, and yelle ALL AT THE BAR, THE PEOPLE CAN JUMP AT THE BARTENDER, AND
    THROW HIM OUT OF THE PLANE.

  5. 106

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @retire05: I’ve been debating on the Internet since the pre-web browser days of CompuServe, circa 1992, continuing on into UseNet (now Google Groups), beginning in 1995, and then more into political blogs since 2005. Between Google Groups and Google, I can still locate close to 20,000 of my posts, virtually all signed with my own name and city, despite thousands of comments having disappeared when the “owners” of the blogs discontinued them and retired the web sites (e.g. as the Orange County Register did, several years back). Virtually all of my posts are signed with my own name and city. I only neglect to do this when I’m in a hurry and/or when it’s simply a short reply. I’ve engaged in all sorts of vigorous debates, with all sorts of passionate people. When I debate with Europeans, I’m the conservative. Same thing with certain issues, e.g. same gender marriage. Not once have I ever been threatened in any way, other than a grand total of two crank phone calls in nearly 20 years. No one ever slashed my tires or showed up at my door with a chain saw.

    I believe in the First Amendment. I believe that it isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit, if we have to hide in our spider holes, behind pseudonyms, emerging only to scrawl graffiti, before crawling back down into our holes. It’s just a personal opinion, like all of my other personal opinions.

    P.S. Regarding the time I devote to this stuff: I’m self-employed and spend most of my days at a microscope, scoring drug effects on human cancer cells in hundreds of slides. It is very challenging work, and I constantly take 5 minute or so breaks to refresh and recharge. I do tend to get overly engaged and have this stuff take over entirely too much of my day, to my wife’s entirely justifiable consternation. Here’s a photo of me at work. My keyboard is just off to the lower left.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

  6. 107

    retire05

    Well, good for you Larry, you support your First Amendment rights and refuse to live in fear of harm that could befall you from modern technology and a nutcase’s ability to cause you that harm. Good on you. But wait,

    you are willing to give up your 4th Amendment rights to be secure in your person and have someone physically search you, sans an arrest warrent, to pander to your fear of being blown up in a plane by a terrorist.

    In some circles, that could be labeled “hypocracy”.

  7. 108

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @retire05: What it all comes down to is whether the TSA screens are reasonable or unreasonable.

    I’d like to give an analogy. You know the story of George Bernard Shaw allegedly asking a woman if she’ll sleep with him for 50,000 pounds (or whatever). Woman says “yes.” Then Shaw asks: “would you sleep with me for 5 pounds?” Woman says, what on earth do you take me for? Shaw replies, we’ve already established who you are; now we are simply haggling over the price.

    You haven’t professed any moral indignation over the TSA screening your luggage, including opening it up and taking everything out of it to inspect what’s inside. You are OK with metal detectors, I presume. You aren’t even voicing an objection to the body scanners. So, in principle, you’ve already surrendered what you profess to be your inalienable 4th Amendment rights.

    What’s bugging you are the pat downs. You have an inaccurate concept of what actually goes on, as I have tried to explain. It does not involve “groping,” “fondling,” or “humiliating” (all words you’ve used to describe your concept of what goes on). I personally wouldn’t put up with being groped, fondled, or humiliated. I do put up with a discreet and totally professional and completely unobtrusive pat down, the way it is actually done by highly trained and professional TSA agents.

    I’ve been touched and violated — in a far worse fashion– riding crowded rental car shuttles, to and from the terminal. Don’t even get me started on the New York and Tokyo subways.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

  8. 109

    retire05

    My, my, a quote from George Bernard Shaw, a Fabian socialist and someone who believed in eugenics and thought that people should only be allowed to live based on their contribution to society. Ummm, I ususally don’t quote people that I have no respect for. But hey, that’s just the way I roll.

    I told you; I no longer fly. I have chosen to stand my ground, unlike you, on the 4th Amendment. It is not anyone’s business what is in my luggage, my purse. I understand risk so that is not the reason I ceased to fly. You are unwilling to take risk on a plane but are willing to take risk on the internet. Again, in some circles that would be labeled “hypocracy.”

    What you obviously have not seen through the lens of your microscope:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmADZpqhKhQ

  9. 110

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @retire05: The Shaw quote was entirely non-political. And I take a much bigger risk in flying, even with all the safeguards, than I do standing tall under my own name on the Internet. I’m enlightened to learn that the term hypocracy (sic X 2) can be applied to risks which one voluntarily chooses to take. By the same token, I’m a hypocrite because I continue to swim with the Pacific Ocean sharks but no longer risk riding my bicycle on Pacific Coast Highway.

    Learn something new every day, it would seem.

    – Larry W/HB

  10. 111

    ilovebeeswarzone

    openid.aol.com/runnswim
    BET YOU HAVE A DOUBLE PERSONALITY, THAT YOU SWICH AT YOUR CONVENIENCE,
    NOT EVERYONE IS SO LUCKY. for such a gift,

  11. 112

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @bees: When did I ever say a single unkind word to you? What on earth did I do to deserve that last comment?

    – Larry W/HB

  12. 113

    ilovebeeswarzone

    openid.aol.com/runnswim,
    why is that bad for you, I meant it as a compliment, because you do so many diffrent things that
    are not related, and like retire said, to you, how do you find the time to blog,
    and I learned that you do swim, like you said yourself, and travel much,
    so that is sound like a lot for one person to find the time for all those things,
    not many do so much in life,
    so that was my way of expressing the many facets of your life,
    no bad intent beleive me, on the contrary.

  13. 115

    retire05

    Larry, since you think that the risk reduction is greater because the TSA conducts enhanced searches, I am really interested in knowing how you reduce your risk when traveling on roadways/highways in a vehicle, which holds great risk than flying?

  14. 116

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @retire05:

    How do I keep myself as safe as possible while driving? (1) don’t drink. (2). Don’t talk on my mobile phone (not even hands free), which is worse than drinking. (3) always buckle up (quite possibly saved my life twice, and surely saved me from serious injury both times). (4) pull off the road and take a nap if I get sleepy. (5) keep my tires properly inflated and my car properly serviced. (6) stay alert to roadway dangers, including other drivers. (7) Try to avoid speeding, although this is, by far, the most difficult safety protocol for me to observe.

    With regard to air travel, you are incorrectly assuming that I think that each and everything that the TSA does is essential for passenger safety. I don’t think that. They do have a tough job, however (much greater than the challenge for Israeli security, as I discussed) and they are doing a very fine job of keeping the air transportation system up and running.

    The pat downs are a microscopic portion of the whole security process and, in the real world (as opposed to the fantasy world of the imaginings of civil libertarians who have never actually gone through the process) it’s a trivial inconvenience, and nothing more.

    There is no reason why anyone who is opposed to a pat down need ever have one. Just pay attention to what you pack in your luggage and don’t set off the metal detector when you walk through it. If you’ve got a prosthetic hip, then bring along medical documentation. It’s as simple as that. But rest assured that, should you end up going through the pat down for whatever reason, it will almost certainly involve no “humiliation,” and it is almost certain to involve no groping or fondling, and the procedure will be done by a highly trained professional.

    Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

  15. 117

    retire05

    OK, so you are a safe driver. That does nothing to reduce your risk of being killed by a drunk driver. So your practices are moot. You are not the only one on the highway. So much for that. You really didn’t have an answer.

    I guess you think Miss U.S.A. was NOT humiliated? Or could it be that you never bothered to watch the video?

  16. 118

    ilovebeeswarzone

    I saw at CNN a clIp of a company that from 5 years could eliminate the TSA or give the ALTERNATIVE with their coming with a concept very futuristic for their customer they call it traveling with DIGNITY; the journalist was trying the prototype In SINGAPORE if I heard right, already built to show how it operate, he, the journalist had to put his pasport into a open space then accepted he walk along a wide space where some scanning box light each for a specific item, nothing touch him, the scanners are like scisor and liquids others so he arrive at the end and re deposit his passport for the last check in a same slit box as the beginning and he is in the waitting space for his flight to arrive, wow, you check it IT’S COMING ,
    I THINK the name of the airline not quite sure if I PICKED IT RIGHT IS HYATT, BUT CHECK IT TO MAKE SURE.

  17. 119

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @retire05: You’ve got a system wherein millions of passengers are being screened — of course their will be rare screw ups, just as in any other human endeavor. I’ve read stories of cops molesting women drivers of vehicles pulled over for alleged traffic violations. There was one of these cases here in Orange County CA, not too long ago.

    You profess to be brave and tough. Yet you are terrified at the thought of the minuscule possibility that, through your own negligence and stupidity, you might put yourself in the position of needing a pat down AND you might win the pervert lottery.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

  18. 120

    MataHarley

    premium_subscriber

    BTW, Larry… off topic, but I just had to address this comment of yours:

    Don’t talk on my mobile phone (not even hands free), which is worse than drinking.

    That’s really interesting. If I’m not fiddling with my phone, and can simply hit a button on my bluetooth to answer (and hang up) to converse, why is conversing while driving such a dangerous thing? Or would you also like to see that conversation with passengers… which would also have to be construed as a distraction for the same reasons… also outlawed?

    Bizarre….

  19. 121

    retire05

    Larry, you also have millions of people on the open highway, and I would suggest, their numbers are greater than the number of people flying every day. Yet, you are still open to harm, harm that you can do nothing to prevent. So other than you own safe driving habits, you offer no risk management policies that would reduce traffic fatalities.

    I might win the pervert lottery? How so? I am not a pervert. And no, I don’t profess to be “brave and tough”. (don’t think I didn’t notice your cloaked attempt to insult me) I am just a person that believes in our Constitution, as written, and understand that the perverts have been the ones in Congress who have perverted that very document because of progressive like you who like to quote Fabian socialist who was never a-political one day in his life. I am also a person who undertstands that the federal government is not my mommie, protecting me from harm and I expect risk in life and can only pray that I handle that risk as an adult.

  20. 122

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @retire05 352:

    So tell me, if all this is being done in the name of “public” safety, then why doesn’t the TSA initiate checks for people everytime they get in their vehicles to get on “public” roadways? Far more Americans die as traffic fatalities than have EVER been blown up in an airplane.

    Yeah, and you’re probably 100 x more likely to drown in a swimming pool accident than you are at the hands of someone brandishing a gun. Don’t quite get the comparison, though.

    Is al Qaeda attempting to hijack cars, load them with explosives, then ram them into buildings here in the U.S.? The chances of being killed on the road than from a plane flight are greater; but what are the chances of terrorists endangering those in motor vehicles vs. those flying on commercial airliners? Have they made zero attempts since 9/11 to hijack planes?

    Isn’t TSA a part of Homeland Security? So shouldn’t their focus on transportation security be in regards to intentional acts of harm and sabotage as opposed to the accidental?

    @retire05 #56:

    You must think that those who want to kill us are really stupid. They murder 3,000 people in a day by flying three planes into buildings and you think that they will try it again. They won’t. Just because they belong to a religion that remains in the 7th century doesn’t mean that they are stupid and unaware of modern technology. Nidal Hassan did not use a plane, did he. He simply drove on to his home base (after he had been shuffled due to polical correctness) and murdered 13 Americans. 3,000 or 13, it doesn’t matter to them. Dead Americans is the goal.

    and also:

    For over 7 years, after 9-11, we did not suffer another attack.

    Do you think it’s from a lack of trying? al Qaeda most certainly would have liked to use hijacked planes again. Because it’s been more difficult to hijack airliners since 9/11, because they’ve been largely unsuccessful and their centralized network in disarray since 9/11, they are looking at other possible ways to hurt us including smaller scale terror attacks rather than the dramatic and spectacular. Nidal Hassan wasn’t part of any organized terror network.

    Statistically, the chances of being involved in a hijacked plane are not very great at all, admittedly. You might even have better luck getting struck by lightning. Yet how many of us found our lives still affected by the events of 9/11 even even though none of us were aboard any of those flights? How did it affect our economy? Our way of life? Should we have not upped security measures at airports and aboard airliners at all and just continued to “go shopping”, pretend that our way of life- our freedoms- weren’t affected at all? Is the threat from Islamic terrorists exaggerated?

    I do think a number of measures we took have been an overreaction response (profiling has my support). No tweezers aboard aircrafts after 9/11 (I can still ram my ballpoint pen into your carotid or subclavian artery, or eye socket).

    And until Obama, the Marxist, took over, I was not subjected to sexual molestation by a TSA agent. If checking out a passenger’s “junk” is the only way to keep us safe while flying, then why was that policy not enacted immediately after 9-11.

    Because the 19 who hijacked American airliners weren’t hiding explosives in their jihadi under00s.

    Since the shoe bomber, we now find ourselves taking off our belts and shoes for examination; after the British foiled a terror plot involving liquids back in 2006, we were no longer allowed to carry shampoo and other liquids and gels on board flights for a while; would a “pat down” have stopped the underwear bomber? Do all these enhanced security measures act as a deterrent? Do bag inspections prevent and deter? The vast majority of flyers probably aren’t thinking of hijacking any flights, after all. They aren’t hiding anything in their shoes or belts to harm travelers; they aren’t smuggling ingredients aboard flights to concoct chemical explosives. So are we just paranoid? Have we sacrificed too many personal liberties for security? One of bin Laden’s goals was to bleed the U.S. economy dry. Certainly we can’t protect ourselves from every conceivable forms of attack at all times. Yet we’ve not had another major terror attack since 9/11; is it from lack of trying on the part of jihadis?

    No doubt terrorists are still trying to come up with new and ingenious ways to still circumvent each new security measure and create another spectacular involving hijacked planes.

    You might not like TSA patdowns and that’s fine. There’s a lot of inconveniences we put up with or don’t put up with (you have the freedom to fly or not to fly; x-ray or patdown; and you’ve exercised your freedom not to fly). But I agree with Larry that it’s hyperbole to use emotionally-charged words and say TSA agents who are trained for the patdown are doing so because they are sexual perverts wanting to cop a feel of you. They’re doing a job just like the doctor that tells you to turn your head and cough. Is he groping, molesting you? Do you really think the doctor who has to give you an Army medical exam is having the time of his life when he asks you to bend over and spread your cheeks?

  21. 123

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @retire05 #121:

    I might win the pervert lottery? How so? I am not a pervert.

    What Larry means is that your chances of being patted down by a perv TSA agent who gets a thrill up his leg for having to pat every Tom, Dick, and Harry, is as slim as playing the lottery.

    Of course, you are characterizing every TSA agent who has that job to do as being a perv, basically.

  22. 124

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Wordsmith, that’s eazy to say, but you don’t impose that kind of communist rules for all AMERICANS,
    WHO DID NOT BLOW ANY OF THE PLANES AS THE TERRORISTS DID,
    SO, THE AMERICAN WHO WOULD HAVE AN EXEMPTION TO BE SCREENED HAVING A PROOF OF BEEING WITHOUT A DOUPT REAL AMERICAN WHO LOVE THEIR COUNTRY, AND ARE OR WHERE READY TO SPILL THEIR BLOOD FOR IT, THOSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN COUNTED AS THEY PUT THOSE
    RESTRICTING MEASURES INTO LAW, WHY?
    BECAUSE THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! NOT ANY MIDDLE EAST COUNTRY HATING AMERICA, and GLOUTING OVER THIS SITE OF A CROWD WAITING FOR THAT HUMILIATING ACTION THEY DON’T DESERVE.
    DOES IN IT MAKE YOU THINK OF THE WAR WWII PICTURES ON THE GATHERING OF THE JEWS?
    PEACEFULLY AWAITING THEIR FAITH, AND IF ONE PROTEST WOULD BE PUNISH, BRUTALYSE ARRESTED OR KILL,
    NEVER AGAIN FOR NO EXCUSE SHOULD THAT GATHERING OF MASSES OF CROWD SHOULD BE IMPOSE TO A PEACEFULL PEOPLE SO TOLERANT TO ACCEPT IT TO THE LIMIT OF TOLERANCE
    JUST BEING THERE IN THE WAITING CROWD IS AN AGGRESSION ITSELF,
    and don’t anyone contredict this fact, in AMERICA NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO GOOD AND TOLERANTS AMERICANS

  23. 125

    retire05

    Wordsmith, of course you missed the entire point: that your chances of being killed in a moter vehicle accident are much greater than being blown out of the sky by a terrorist. Now, to bring it home for you, consider this: when 9-11 happened, we lost almost 3,000 citizens. The horror was not just the loss of so many Americans, but the violence of that day watching the two tallest buildings in America fall and the fact that we are no longer a nation protected by oceans, and that 19 people could create so much carnage and destruction. That same year, 2001, we had 42,196 people die in traffic fatalities. (according to the NTSA). My point is that the risk of getting on America’s highways is ten times greater than being blown up in an airplane by terrorists.

    Is Al Qaeda using cars to blow up buildings? You tell me. There are claims that Timothy McVeigh was involved with a Muslim terrorist group, but even if he wasn’t, what is to prevent someone fom Al Qaeda using the same tactics McVeigh used? Nothing. Or have you forgotten how the Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up? And why would Al Qaeda (not the only terrorist group out there ) use the same tactic they did on 9-11 when they understand that our government is reactive to each event?

    Let me ask you this: what do you think public reaction would be if the headline read:

    Over 4,000 Americans Killed By Illegal Immigrants

    for that is the estimated death rate, PER YEAR, yet the entire nation is not up in a national uproar to seal our borders, deport those who should not be here, and demand that the laws be enforced.

    You say that Nidal Hassan was not connected to any terrorist organization, but ignore his connection to Anwar Al Awlaki, the American born terrorist who is talked about as taking over for UBL. You also ignore reports done by a number of national security groups that say that Al Qaeda’s newest tactic is “lone wolf” terrorists who will continue to terrorize Americans by killing in fewer numbers each incident.

    I also never said that TSA agents are sexual perverts. I did say they are un/under trained. And they are. I also said that the TSA, under Janet (our borders are safer than ever) Napolitano, is reactive, not proactive. The TSA admitted that even using the procedures they currently use would not have caught the Hanes bomber. And there is absolutely no comparison to being checked by a TSA agent to being examined by your personal physician who you give permission to for the purpose of an examination. And that physical by your physician is not done in full view of other patients, is it? So you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

    My point, that you miss, is that my chances of being killed in an traffic accident is 10 times greater than being blown out of the sky. That the TSA is reactive, not proactive. That there is risk involvement in everything we do, including driving to the grocery store, or the doctor’s office. That the federal government cannot eliminate risk by eliminating 4th Amendment rights. And that there is no hard data that the enchanced search procedures recently put into place by the DHS has made us any safer than we were even prior to 9-11, and there is no hard data that any terrorist has been thwarted by the TSA, EVER.

  24. 126

    ilovebeeswarzone

    FURTHERMORE, OBAMA APPOLOGYSE TO THEM FOR THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, AND HE SUCCEEDED TO PUNISH THE AMERICAN FOR BEING A SUPERPOWER OVER THE WORLD TO PROTECT FREEDOM FOR ALL THE OPRESS.
    HUMILIATE AMERICA THAT WAY, IS THE TOP OF THE ABUSE

  25. 127

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @retire05:

    Wordsmith, of course you missed the entire point: that your chances of being killed in a moter vehicle accident are much greater than being blown out of the sky by a terrorist.

    and

    My point, that you miss, is that my chances of being killed in an traffic accident is 10 times greater than being blown out of the sky.

    Actually, I got this point. My issue is with the comparison, which I look at as apples and oranges. Please reread my response where I acknowledge how miniscule the chances of being a victim of terrorism is as compared to being a traffic fatality.

    I agree that the TSA measures have been reactive- an overreaction response when you ban tweezers from being carried aboard flights; rather than discriminating through profiling the lazy way out is a “one-size-fits-all” solution.

    I also never said that TSA agents are sexual perverts.

    And yet all your comments are about characterizing them as “groping”, “sexually molesting”? Can you see where a reader may get that impression from you? I spent the last day going through this thread’s comments and that’s the impression your comments gave me.

    And there is absolutely no comparison to being checked by a TSA agent to being examined by your personal physician who you give permission to for the purpose of an examination. And that physical by your physician is not done in full view of other patients, is it? So you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

    I understood that when I wrote it; but you missed exactly what I was comparing: The fact that someone has a job to do, whether it’s a TSA agent (who you don’t welcome patting you down) or a personal physician who you willingly go to for medical attention. And that person isn’t there to sexually molest you but to do his professional job (unless in fact he is a proven pervert).

  26. 128

    retire05

    wordsmith, there is hard data that proves that an individual who undergoes a physical examination, in a very private setting, by their personal physican has a better chance at remaining healthy. This is the reason that Medicare pays for an initial physical exam when you go on Medicare. There is NO hard data that the TSA policy of physical patdowns, that have proven embarrassing to a number of people who were actually groped (Miss U.S.A. being the most recent case I can think of) has thwarted any would be terrorist. Also, being physically examined by your physician is an action you voluntarily requested, being patted down by an undertrained TSO is not. Do you not understand the difference between voluntarily being examined by your personal physician and being subjected to an enchanced search because the federal bureaucrats have ordered it?

    And yes, TSA screeners are undertrained. It is simple economics. The starting salary, according to the TSA itself, is from salary Bands D & E. The starting salaries are between $12.24/hr to $14.08/hr. depending on educational/experience background as is standard in any Civil Service job. The turn over in TSA screeners is around 30%. So how much expense in training do you think the federal government is willing to invest in a TSA screener who can probably make that much working at Home Depot (Lowe’s starting salary is over $11.50/hr, more in some states) and there is a 30% chance that screen won’t make it a year in the job?

    If you use the excuse that the TSA screeners are “only doing their job”. They are only doing their job because they have been ordered to (which btw, was the same excuse the German soldiers stationed at concentration camps used). If the police were ordered to conduct a extremely personal patdown if you were stopped for having a headlight/tail light out, were you accept it because they were “only doing their job”? How about if the TSA wanted to physically pat you down everytime you entered a federal building, placing their hands on your crotch and/or breasts, because Timothy McVeigh blew up the Muir Building, or that you have to go through that process if you wanted to park your vehicle in the federal building parking lot?

    If you want to use the excuse that the federal government has taken these actions in order to prevent 200 people from being blown out of the sky, then it stands to reason that the federal government should become more proactive in regards to illegal immigration since every year we are seeing over 4,000 people murdered by illegal immigrants. There is NO difference. If it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect you from possible harm, they need to apply that standard to ALL possibility of harm, not just the one that controls our freedom of movement from one area to another.

  27. 129

    ilovebeeswarzone

    RETIRE05, YOU HAVE A POINT THERE.
    how come they didn’t start by number one danger!!! that is closing the BORDERS. THE TSA closing the borders, that would be quite a good job for them.

  28. 130

    retire05

    ilovebeeswarzone, 5 of the last 7 Houston police officers murdered have been murdered by illegal aliens. I have never known anyone who died in a plane blown up by a terrorist (although I have friends that lost family on 9-11) but I have been to the funeral of three people murdered by an illegal alien. Did those people not have a legitimate expantancy to be kept safe by their government?

  29. 131

    ilovebeeswarzone

    retire05, this is quite high figures for officers of the law being killed, and I heard they where ban from shooting them, that should be the reverse number, yes they should be protected for sure and allowed to shoot on site,
    that would send a message, that in AMERICA THE LAW SHOULD BE APPLYED FOR WHO EVER WANT TO LIVE IN HERE,
    the TSA ARE MORE PROTECTED BY THEIR UNIONS, THEN THE ARIZONA SHERIF AND POLICE,

  30. 132

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @mata (#120): Regarding hands free mobile phones.

    This is an interesting topic — hopefully not at all political.

    The data (and they are pretty robust) indicate that hands free mobile phones are no safer than handsets. I was surprised to learn this (I think I first heard the story on NPR’s “Science Friday,” or some such extended radio program).

    Anyway, the data are clear, but the explanation is a bit more speculative. They have done studies in simulators. Talking to a passenger in a car isn’t unduly dangerous, but hands free mobile talking is dangerous (more dangerous than driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08). It seems to be related to the fact that passengers are aware of both what’s happening on the road and what the driver is doing. With an in person conversation, the passenger is cued in to the surroundings and less likely to demand attention during moments when the driver’s attention is particularly required to be focused on driving.

    Notice what happens to your attention when you are sitting in your office and someone walks in and starts talking to you. In my case, I’m still completely aware of my surroundings — what’s going on in the office. But when the phone rings, more of my attention is required to be focused on listening to the caller — my surroundings just fade into the background.

    I’m sure it’s different for different people. Women are supposed to be better at multitasking, for example.

    What’s really gone up are bicycle fatalities — not only in the USA but also in the UK and Japan. I’m pretty sure that this is owing to mobile phone usage. The cyclist is sharing the road with traffic; it’s very easy for a distracted driver to veer to the shoulder side of the road and clip the cyclist. What I really notice, when I ride my bike, are the number of people who are obviously speaking on a phone while making left turns in front of me from the oncoming traffic after I’ve already entered the intersection to cross. They seem totally oblivious to me and it’s up to me to take the required evasive actions. I don’t ride my bike nearly so much anymore, as a result.

    – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

  31. 133

    ilovebeeswarzone

    openid.aol.com/runnswim
    what if they listen to a radio exchange or music words that some songs are hard to
    hear the words, if they allow that, then they should not ban the other one

  32. 134

    johngalt

    @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

    Motorcyclists have the same kind of issues as bicyclists. I don’t discount the use of cell phones, whether up to the ear, or hands free, as contributing to the accidents, but it really isn’t so much about that as it is people who have little regard for others, including those within other autos, when they are out driving.

    I use my cell phone in my vehicle, but never in heavy traffic, or within urban areas. For those times, I’ll either let it ring, or stop off somewhere to answer it. On the highway, or out in rural areas with little traffic, however, I will answer it, and even dial on it. It’s all about having mutual concern for other people on the road, and cell phones are just one instrument of distraction that take away from that mutual concern of others. Books, eating, application of makeup(not me, so no jokes about it), and even shaving are other distractions that take away from that mutual concern of others.

  33. 135

    ilovebeeswarzone

    johngalt, as you seem to know, It’s not a joke to put makeup while driving,
    even harder to eat a book with hands on the wheel

  34. 138

    Wordsmith

    editor

    @retire05:

    Also, being physically examined by your physician is an action you voluntarily requested, being patted down by an undertrained TSO is not. Do you not understand the difference between voluntarily being examined by your personal physician and being subjected to an enchanced search because the federal bureaucrats have ordered it?

    I thought I was clear on this, but I guess not. Please read again what I wrote:

    I understood that when I wrote it; but you missed exactly what I was comparing: The fact that someone has a job to do, whether it’s a TSA agent (who you don’t welcome patting you down) or a personal physician who you willingly go to for medical attention. And that person isn’t there to sexually molest you but to do his professional job (unless in fact he is a proven pervert).

    It doesn’t matter whether the former is a government employee doing his job, to whom you are not willingly subjecting yourself or if it is the latter who may or may not be in the private sector but to whom you are willingly subjecting yourself to. The point I am making is in the characterization that TSA agents are “groping, fondling, molesting” passengers whereas a doctor conducting an exam isn’t, in a sense, doing the same (the doctor exam, if we’re to be specific, most likely being more invasive than the TSA pat down). Both are conducting themselves professionally, unless proven otherwise. It’s your choice of language which I question, which is emotionally-based- calling TSA doing their job as “molestation”.

    And yes, TSA screeners are undertrained.

    That’s quite possible, although just because someone is a low-salaried worker, does not mean he can’t conduct himself professionally and competently. I don’t think he needs a doctorate degree in order to perform a pat down. Wasn’t it a “lowly” U.S. immigration agent who was alert enough to foil al-Qahtani, from entering as the 20th hijacker?

    I’m not even arguing or disputing you on a number of these side issues that you are bringing to the table. I think you are reading more into my comments than is meant, or bringing other peeves into it (border issue, for instance).

    They are only doing their job because they have been ordered to (which btw, was the same excuse the German soldiers stationed at concentration camps used).

    Ok, so how did you make the jump from TSA agents to a Nazi comparison?!

    How about if the TSA wanted to physically pat you down everytime you entered a federal building, placing their hands on your crotch and/or breasts, because Timothy McVeigh blew up the Muir Building, or that you have to go through that process if you wanted to park your vehicle in the federal building parking lot?

    If it were the case that terrorists were plotting to enter or carbomb federal buildings, then it might stand to reason. As it is, you have to go through a certain level of security check anyway. The question is, to what degree? Where are you willing to draw the line? Larry pointed this out earlier, I believe, when he brought up the issue of being inconvenienced by such things as baggage check, luggage inspections, personal items, wanding, etc. You draw the line at pat downs. Fine. Why not go through the x-ray screening then?

    Is the whole war on terror an overblown exaggeration, then? Are GWoT critics right, then, that this should have remained a law enforcement issue? After all, the likelihood of you being a victim of a terror attack whether by plane, train, or automobile are negligibly slim. Was the underwear bomber a one-time phenomena? Is the upgrade in AIT units or pat-downs unjustified? Reactive rather than proactively preemptive?

    I’m simply asking questions here. I think you’re missing my original points, still, when I fully acknowledged in my first comment that you stand a greater chance of being struck by lightning than having your plane hijacked (even if there was only pre-9/11 type screening rather than what we have today). That the shoe bomber changed our way of life. That the underwear bomber changed it further. I’ve told you that we’re prone to an overreaction response (such as banning all passengers from carrying aboard tweezers when a person with the right mindset can improvise anything at hand to kill you with as a weapon).

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    RETIRE05, YOU HAVE A POINT THERE.
    how come they didn’t start by number one danger!!! that is closing the BORDERS.

    Okay, great. So now we’ve jumped to borders issue.

    Yes, secure the borders. However, you do realize that the 19 9/11 terrorists came in through legal means?

    Off-topic…
    @openid.aol.com/runnswim: I’m GREAT at multi-tasking. There are some people who aren’t, don’t have the wherewithal to understand or acknowledge their own limitations, or exercise poor judgment.

    I’ve seen other studies that also show how many things can constitute a “distraction”, aside from cell-phone use: Putting on make-up, yelling at kids in the back seat, putting ketchup on your drive-thru fries, fiddling with the radio dial or cd changer, outside distractions like billboard signs and an attractive woman walking down the street….

    A portion of brain function is diverted even by simply thinking/day dreaming in your head about other things (try recalling exact buildings, street names, and specific details of the road that you’ve passed by without full 100% alertness).

  35. 139

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Wordsmith, multitasking ability, that you posess should be a requirement very important for being elected in a COUNTRY SO FULL OF TASKS NEEDED LIKE AMERICA,
    IF THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MULTI TASK, WHEN THEY DECIDE TO PUNISH THE AMERICANS FOR HAVING THE TERRORIST ENTER THE COUNTRY, like AMERICA HATER FROM
    ALL SOURCES OF ENTRY INCLUDING THE BORDERS.
    THE MULTITASK ABILITY WOULD HAVE MADE THEM FOCUS ON NOT ONE EXIT AND ENTRY BUT ALSO THE BORDERS WHICH HAVE BROUGHT KILLERS OF OUR OWN OFFICERS OF THE LAW
    RENDERING THEM POWERLESS OVER THE GIGANTIC TASK THEY ARE TRYING TO DO WITHOUT NO BODY EVEN BLINKING TO HELP, THEY EVEN TRY TO SILENCE THE GOVERNER WHO WAS TRYING TO DO HER OWN JOB.
    NO, THEY HAVE NOT AN ONCE OF MULTITASK SKILL .
    BUT THEY DO MULTITASK AGAINST AMERICANS INTEREST

  36. 140

    openid.aol.com/runnswim

    @word (#138): I think a good test of whether or not it’s a particularly good idea to avoid mobile phones while driving is whether or not you miss freeway exits or turns while talking on them (or while talking to passengers). If you miss freeway exits or turns, that’s a pretty good indication that you are readily distractable. – Larry W/HB

  37. 141

    retire05

    wordsmith, the whole point of my debate is that Larry supports what I consider a violation of my 4th Amendment rights (by subjecting myself to a patdown if so ordered) in order to give him some protection against a possible terrorist while flying, yet he assumes the risk of driving on highways without the same demanded security. Also, yes, I have the option of going through a full body scan, but if you read one of Larry’s posts above, he refuses the full body scan. Now, why would that be? Perhaps because he is in the “cancer” business?

    You think I am comparing apples to oranges with flight security and the border. No, the point I was trying to make is that if the federal government has the responsibility to protect us from harm in one area of national security, then it stands to reason it has the same responsibility to protect us from harm in ALL areas of national security. Those people who died on 9-11 were no more terrorized that day than was rancher Robert Krantz when he was shot by an illegal alien in a border county, again, a national security area addressed IN OUR CONSITUTION. National security doesn’t just emcompass one section of our nation, it also includes the borders of our nation and this administration is failing miserably in that area. So yes, there is comparison between areas of national security just as your fingers are part of your hand.

    You see, 3.000 deaths in one day is sensational, and tragic. 4,000 deaths in one year is ignored because it is not sensational, although tragic and has become all to common place, unlike what happened on 9-11. People react to the sensational, not the common place.