TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:Yes, it, the ridiculousness is the whole point, and now his lawyer is compounding it. By his action he refused further screening, by not complying with a reasonable request to put his clothes back on and follow established procedure. TSA could not have him arrested, that is a decision for local LEOs, TSA can only file charges through their process, which does not involve arrest. I don't see his response as either rational or reasonable.

Most Americans would probably consider the TSA agent's response to be the irrational one. If their job is to make sure there are no explosives or weapons hidden against the body under clothing, they didn't need him to be more covered to do so. The passenger's act was a reductio ad absurdum as it takes the argument out to its extreme ends to point out the ridiculousness of the act in the first place. It's the act that is ridiculous, not the man.

It seems to me that your argument is that he should have just shut up and went along with something he was morally opposed to because it was dictated from someone higher up and he just shouldn't cause waves. You even justified the TSA agents reacting to any criticism or critiquing (which you said they themselves might actually agree with) by taking it out on the passengers and making a humiliating, invasive process as uncomfortable as possible for anyone who gripes or complains. That's pretty scary rhetoric to me. I highlighted below where I understood you to be saying that.

jimlongley wrote:So gripe, abuse, and threaten all you want, but all you are really doing is making it worse for yourselves, because the average screener pretty much agrees with the evaluation that TSA is reactive and pat downs are invasive, but thinks that you are being idiots by objecting to backscatter while getting ready to take a higher dose of radiation while flying on a plane, and every little noise you make while in line merely strengthens their resolve to make the process as uncomfortable for you as it is for them.

I respect your point of view and don't want you to think that I am attacking you personally, because I'm not. It's the ideas and the processes which really concern me and the defense of them which sets off red flags in my head. I know I would not feel safe taking my family through one of these screenings and I am grateful for those who are going public with the abuses already occurring, with their experiences, and with drawing attention to this in their own ways so that it can be addressed.

So, you don't think that TSA is going too far? View this then read the poster's description....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQTz1bccL4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(I did not embedded the video so you can read the description on YouTube's site.)

VMI77 wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:I'm not certain that I could communicate that any hesitation on my part is a lack of comprehension rather than an unwillingness to cooperate.

I agree with you for the most part but take a little exception to this one statement. The system is the way it is, partially at least, because too many people have been willing to cooperate with too much --and not just at airports. You're probably a pretty reasonable man and a law abiding citizen, as are most people on this board, and I think your statement that you have fears about flying, because a failure to comprehend might be construed as a failure to comply, is a serious indictment of how out of control the system has become. And if, for example, the TSA (and by TSA I mean Big Sis and her ilk, not the employees who have to carry out the policies) has credible evidence or reason to believe that Americans are planting weapons and explosives on their own children, then the war on terrorism is already over, and we lost.

There is not be a shred of evidence that anyone, anyplace has had any intelligence that Americans, living here, are planting bombs on planes, have tried to do so or would be even willing to try. Exclusive of the 9-11 highjackers themselves (and there was credible evidence against them that could have and should have been used if our intelligence agencies hadn't been so territorial at the time) the threats are all outside of our borders. If domestic attacks have been thwarted, it is the best keep secret ever. To me, that is what makes this whole situation ludicrous.

What I specifically fear is the TSA version of the Costco disaster. I've seen what happens with the flying public and just how testy things can get. Add in rampant animosity towards this policy with no way to vent it and you have a manifestation similar to road rage. With much of the public against what is happening and probably verbally harassing them at every opportunity, some TSA agent will reach their limit and expect immediate obedience to an instruction, potentially not getting it. There will be an overreaction which then mushrooms out of control. I just don't want to be there as the fulcrum of that lever.

I'll admit it. I have no trust in our government - at any level. Trust is earned. Specifically, there is nothing about any part of our approach to terrorism which inspires trust. We have been lucky rather than good. I agree with those who believe that these scanners are more about the contract which sells them to the government than about what they do for us. Implemented properly, this whole untested process should never have been started at more than a couple of airports to see what kind of success and problems it generated. There is not going to be another underwear bomber - the terrorists have already got something else figured out that we cannot currently detect. The bureaucrats just haven't accepted it yet. When they couldn't figure out Ft. Hood in advance, I have little hope of being protected from whatever is coming next.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Yes, it, the ridiculousness is the whole point, and now his lawyer is compounding it. By his action he refused further screening, by not complying with a reasonable request to put his clothes back on and follow established procedure. TSA could not have him arrested, that is a decision for local LEOs, TSA can only file charges through their process, which does not involve arrest. I don't see his response as either rational or reasonable.

Most Americans would probably consider the TSA agent's response to be the irrational one. If their job is to make sure there are no explosives or weapons hidden against the body under clothing, they didn't need him to be more covered to do so. The passenger's act was a reductio ad absurdum as it takes the argument out to its extreme ends to point out the ridiculousness of the act in the first place. It's the act that is ridiculous, not the man.

It seems to me that your argument is that he should have just shut up and went along with something he was morally opposed to because it was dictated from someone higher up and he just shouldn't cause waves. You even justified the TSA agents reacting to any criticism or critiquing (which you said they themselves might actually agree with) by taking it out on the passengers and making a humiliating, invasive process as uncomfortable as possible for anyone who gripes or complains. That's pretty scary rhetoric to me. I highlighted below where I understood you to be saying that.

jimlongley wrote:So gripe, abuse, and threaten all you want, but all you are really doing is making it worse for yourselves, because the average screener pretty much agrees with the evaluation that TSA is reactive and pat downs are invasive, but thinks that you are being idiots by objecting to backscatter while getting ready to take a higher dose of radiation while flying on a plane, and every little noise you make while in line merely strengthens their resolve to make the process as uncomfortable for you as it is for them.

I respect your point of view and don't want you to think that I am attacking you personally, because I'm not. It's the ideas and the processes which really concern me and the defense of them which sets off red flags in my head. I know I would not feel safe taking my family through one of these screenings and I am grateful for those who are going public with the abuses already occurring, with their experiences, and with drawing attention to this in their own ways so that it can be addressed.

But by taking his reduction into the absurd he made himself as ridiculous as his act. The problem is that he had already started the process, a process that essentially cannot be aborted once he crossed the line. All he had to do was cooperate and he would have flown instead of having the LEOs frog march him in his scanties. I don't see that he has anything to gripe about, BTW, for being marched around in his undies, he was the one who stripped in public in the first place, so he must have wanted to be that way.

All I am saying about the screeners reacting as most any human would is that they react as most any human would. Polite breeds polite, but it's a rare human that will react to criticism, particularly criticism they see as unwarranted, by making a process easier for the person doing the criticism. And, BTW, that's against TSA rules, and screeners caught doing such things are disciplined.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Yes, it, the ridiculousness is the whole point, and now his lawyer is compounding it. By his action he refused further screening, by not complying with a reasonable request to put his clothes back on and follow established procedure. TSA could not have him arrested, that is a decision for local LEOs, TSA can only file charges through their process, which does not involve arrest. I don't see his response as either rational or reasonable.

Most Americans would probably consider the TSA agent's response to be the irrational one. If their job is to make sure there are no explosives or weapons hidden against the body under clothing, they didn't need him to be more covered to do so. The passenger's act was a reductio ad absurdum as it takes the argument out to its extreme ends to point out the ridiculousness of the act in the first place. It's the act that is ridiculous, not the man.

It seems to me that your argument is that he should have just shut up and went along with something he was morally opposed to because it was dictated from someone higher up and he just shouldn't cause waves. You even justified the TSA agents reacting to any criticism or critiquing (which you said they themselves might actually agree with) by taking it out on the passengers and making a humiliating, invasive process as uncomfortable as possible for anyone who gripes or complains. That's pretty scary rhetoric to me. I highlighted below where I understood you to be saying that.

jimlongley wrote:So gripe, abuse, and threaten all you want, but all you are really doing is making it worse for yourselves, because the average screener pretty much agrees with the evaluation that TSA is reactive and pat downs are invasive, but thinks that you are being idiots by objecting to backscatter while getting ready to take a higher dose of radiation while flying on a plane, and every little noise you make while in line merely strengthens their resolve to make the process as uncomfortable for you as it is for them.

I respect your point of view and don't want you to think that I am attacking you personally, because I'm not. It's the ideas and the processes which really concern me and the defense of them which sets off red flags in my head. I know I would not feel safe taking my family through one of these screenings and I am grateful for those who are going public with the abuses already occurring, with their experiences, and with drawing attention to this in their own ways so that it can be addressed.

This terrorism/security thing is not about one. If one objects to being screened, one can stay home. It's as simple as that.

chasfm11 wrote:Jim, I looked at pictures of the boxes of recently "confiscated" items. I would judge 80% of small knives collected to be slightly ahead of nail clippers on a lethal scale and no where near the lethal threat that your smuggled guns were. That was my point. While it is possible that a couple of individuals with small blades might attempt to take over an airplane again, with the understanding that the American public now has and the shielded cockpit doors, that likelyhood, using a small knife, is pretty remote. The fact that you were able to smuggle guns on confirms the quality of the resulting "protection,." So a lot of people lost there small pocket knives for no good purpose other than to appease the out of touch bureaucrats who still think it is a good idea. For the record, I don't think that people need to carry knives on as carry on items but confiscating them is NOT improving security.

And I have carried many of those boxes to the office for them to be inventoried and packaged up. Actually the weird thing about that to me is that they are not allowed to destroy those "confiscated" items, they get shipped to a warehouse somewhere and stored.

BTW, "confiscated" is a wrong term - TSA, except in some circumstances, must offer the possibility of passing the offending item, with the exception of guns, and sometimes even those, off to someone else outside the secure area or placing it in their check bag. At Love Field there was a "self mail" box off the side of the lobby, and several of us used to keep the mailers handy at the check point to pass out to people so they could mail knives and such home. Upper TSA management caught wind of what we were doing and put a stop to it, your guess is as good as mine why, it seemed like good public relations to me.

chasfm11 wrote:My most recent flight out of Chicago was in August, 2010. My screening line contained two TSA workers of questionable English skills. My major concern with this is not that I care whether they speak English or not but that they may be giving me instructions which I cannot comprehend and therefore cannot follow. Given the potentially volatile environment that can result from a perceived failure to follow instructions (and as evidenced by the speed with which several of the recent events escalated), I'm not comfortable in going through screening any more. I have some documented hearing loss but given the apparent TSA policy of unwillingness to consider anything that a passenger says (evidence: the ostomy bag incident), I'm not certain that I could communicate that any hesitation on my part is a lack of comprehension rather than an unwillingness to cooperate. I've seen a number of folks older than myself who had even worse problems.

As someone else with a hearing loss, I know what you mean, and I would share your concern in that case. People who pronounce letters wrong; Vs for Ws and v/v are the best example I can think of, but in the years I was with TSA, and the traveling I did after I left there, the only language problems I ran into was when someone from Boston was boarding ahead of me in Tuscaloosa Alabama, and it was obvious that she had no idea what the screener was saying.

chasfm11 wrote:I no longer have to fly for business regularly.

Me either, but not by choice.

chasfm11 wrote:Until a more sane policy is adapted, I will not travel for pleasure either. Even in the event of a death in the family (our nearest relatives are 1,500 miles away), we will be driving, not flying. I suspect that I'm not alone. The airline industry continues to struggle and the security situation is likely to do further harm, just when we need all of the jobs in this country that we can get. This is one of the best cases of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" that I can think of. Our airlines will be very secure soon - because they will have few travelers. It will be another triumph for big government

I still intend to fly, if and when I get the chance.

Oldgringo wrote:This terrorism/security thing is not about one. If one objects to being screened, one can stay home. It's as simple as that.

I don't think it is as simple as that.

If one believes the types of programs that are being implemented by one's own government are unethical, immoral, imprudent, or a violation of the laws and/or system of government the country has in place (among other similar things), I believe one has a moral, ethical, and/or civic duty to oppose those programs and seek change. Different people have different means, strengths, and abilities to use in doing so. Some can write a letter to the editor, some can take a car, some can strip down to their speedos and get arrested to fight it in court, some can bring awareness, some can talk to their legislators, most can vote, some can directly change the programs and policies in place.

I despise the many frivolous comparisons I read of actions or people being equated to Nazism, agreeing with fellow Texan Mike Godwin that the hyperbolic uses diminish the efficacy and purpose of legitimate comparisons, and so I find it unfortunate that the most succinct and appropriate explanation of my overarching beliefs on acting in the face of government injustice comes from Martin Niemöller's reflection on guilt and responsibility following his internment at Dachau which have been condensed and edited into the pithy little poem now called "First They Came..."

Few things in government can accurately be summed up with, "as simple as that." The policies affect too many laws, budgets, jobs, votes, programs, and people to have a simple solution, even when the problem itself is simple enough.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:This terrorism/security thing is not about one. If one objects to being screened, one can stay home. It's as simple as that.

I don't think it is as simple as that.

If one believes the types of programs that are being implemented by one's own government are unethical, immoral, imprudent, or a violation of the laws and/or system of government the country has in place (among other similar things), I believe one has a moral, ethical, and/or civic duty to oppose those programs and seek change. Different people have different means, strengths, and abilities to use in doing so. Some can write a letter to the editor, some can take a car, some can strip down to their speedos and get arrested to fight it in court, some can bring awareness, some can talk to their legislators, most can vote, some can directly change the programs and policies in place.

Silent disagreement with government policy gets you no further than your arm chair.

i8godzilla wrote:So, you don't think that TSA is going too far? View this then read the poster's description....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQTz1bccL4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(I did not embedded the video so you can read the description on YouTube's site.)

If what he says is correct that is a truly scary sight indeed. I'm an enormous fan of 1984 and anything similar in storyline (V for Vendetta and the like, even a few video games). The description gave me chills. I'd be watching over my shoulder the rest of my stay in that airport and would submit my story to a friendly newspaper.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:This terrorism/security thing is not about one. If one objects to being screened, one can stay home. It's as simple as that.

I don't think it is as simple as that.

If one believes the types of programs that are being implemented by one's own government are unethical, immoral, imprudent, or a violation of the laws and/or system of government the country has in place (among other similar things), I believe one has a moral, ethical, and/or civic duty to oppose those programs and seek change. Different people have different means, strengths, and abilities to use in doing so. Some can write a letter to the editor, some can take a car, some can strip down to their speedos and get arrested to fight it in court, some can bring awareness, some can talk to their legislators, most can vote, some can directly change the programs and policies in place.

I despise the many frivolous comparisons I read of actions or people being equated to Nazism, agreeing with fellow Texan Mike Godwin that the hyperbolic uses diminish the efficacy and purpose of legitimate comparisons, and so I find it unfortunate that the most succinct and appropriate explanation of my overarching beliefs on acting in the face of government injustice comes from Martin Niemöller's reflection on guilt and responsibility following his internment at Dachau which have been condensed and edited into the pithy little poem now called "First They Came..."

Few things in government can accurately be summed up with, "as simple as that." The policies affect too many laws, budgets, jobs, votes, programs, and people to have a simple solution, even when the problem itself is simple enough.

When I was younger and much smarter, life was a complicated chore to say the least. Now, in the September of my years, life is a simple day at a time affair. I'm no longer willin' to spend my time and energies fixin' the unfixable. It's someone else's turn. I am now a spectator to the follies and foibles of the tailess bi-peds.

Good luck and God Bless.

"Here's lookin' at you, kid" - Humphrey Bogart to Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca circa 1942

Oldgringo wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:This terrorism/security thing is not about one. If one objects to being screened, one can stay home. It's as simple as that.

I don't think it is as simple as that.

If one believes the types of programs that are being implemented by one's own government are unethical, immoral, imprudent, or a violation of the laws and/or system of government the country has in place (among other similar things), I believe one has a moral, ethical, and/or civic duty to oppose those programs and seek change. Different people have different means, strengths, and abilities to use in doing so. Some can write a letter to the editor, some can take a car, some can strip down to their speedos and get arrested to fight it in court, some can bring awareness, some can talk to their legislators, most can vote, some can directly change the programs and policies in place.

I despise the many frivolous comparisons I read of actions or people being equated to Nazism, agreeing with fellow Texan Mike Godwin that the hyperbolic uses diminish the efficacy and purpose of legitimate comparisons, and so I find it unfortunate that the most succinct and appropriate explanation of my overarching beliefs on acting in the face of government injustice comes from Martin Niemöller's reflection on guilt and responsibility following his internment at Dachau which have been condensed and edited into the pithy little poem now called "First They Came..."

Few things in government can accurately be summed up with, "as simple as that." The policies affect too many laws, budgets, jobs, votes, programs, and people to have a simple solution, even when the problem itself is simple enough.

When I was younger and much smarter, life was a complicated chore to say the least. Now, in the September of my years, life is a simple day at a time affair. I'm no longer willin' to spend my time and energies fixin' the unfixable. It's someone else's turn. I am now a spectator to the follies and foibles of the two legged bi-pods.

Good luck and God Bless.

"Here's lookin' at you, kid" - Humphrey Bogart to Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca circa 1942

In the summer of your own life, you acted in ways which protected me in the spring of mine.
I hope that in the summer of my own life, I will act in ways which protect you in the winter of yours.

Hoi Polloi wrote:
In the summer of your own life, you acted in ways which protected me in the spring of mine.
I hope that in the summer of my own life, I will act in ways which protect you in the winter of yours.

That's pretty good...and a nice thought.

A big THANK YOU to Oldgringo and Hoi Polloi !

Excellent points.

Gotta watch more sunrises, sunsets, clouds, and stars, (and puppys)- Good for the soul, heart, and spirit.

Best Regards,
Blue

http://lagrangenews.com/view/full_story ... eft_column

A TSA employee remained hospitalized today after being accused of kidnapping a young female in Atlanta, then taking her to his Hogansville residence and sexually assaulting her.

Randall Scott King, whose age and street address were not given, abducted the woman Wednesday evening from a MARTA parking lot at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, police said.

TSA

Boycotting and NOT flying helps protest BUT--

Some folks have to fly,

---SOOO!

------- how bout a boycott of JUST ONE AIRLINE ? -------

Most people can do that and it should have greater effect.

This is silly in so many ways. Several years ago I contracted with NIST (National Institute on Standards and Technology) to do a study on security in one particular sector of the economy. One of the surprising finding is that 80% of the actual breaks in security came from internal sources (not external) while almost all of the money is spent guarding against external threats. Better watch those TSA agents!