Sometimes you read things that renew your hope in the great nation that is The United States of America. (http://blog.wilshipley.com/2010/11/q-with-tsa-chairman-john-pistole.html)
"Recently, I got to sit down with TSA Chairman John Pistole for a friendly interview. Here's a transcript of the actual audio:
Me: Hi John. I hope that's not too familiar – I feel like we should be on a first-name basis since you've touched my junk. Anyways, let's get right to it. Before I ask any hard questions, I'd like to establish some facts we agree on:
So, we both agree that terrorists, in as much as they have a master plan, are not out to kill every single American. They are, in fact, just out to create fear in us: a persistent, nagging, every day fear that causes us to doubt everything we believe in, a fear that grinds at us until we've lost the joy of being Americans, and we'll finally do anything to stop it.
Pistole: That might be a bit of a dramitic—
Me: So my first question is, should the TSA's only priority be preventing any terrorist attacks, or should it pay more attention to what effect it is having on Americans' morale?
Pistole: Well, we feel that flying is an exception to normal rules. What you have is essentially a giant flying bomb with people trapped aboard it, and as we saw in 9/11 this bomb can be used to devast—
Me: Right, planes are huge bombs – and, as Bruce Schneier pointed out in 2005, we immediately reinforced cabin doors after 9/11, so planes can't be used that way by terrorists any more: there won't be any more 9/11-style flying-planes-into-buildings attacks.
So, now the only significant thing about air travel is that it's a bunch of people in a small space who can't easily leave. Which is a lot like riding a bus, or being in a crowded coffee shop. So do you think Americans should surrender our constitutional rights in those situations, and, if not, what exactly makes air travel special?
Pistole: Wait, uh, what? You said this was going to be a friendly interview. What hap—
Me: Come to think of it, it's also exactly like being in the TSA's security line, which often have more people in them than the planes themselves. What exactly is going to prevent terrorists from just bringing bombs into lines with them? Before you answer, note that this isn't hypothetical — terrorists around the world strike cafés and lines for exactly this reason.
Pistole: I don't have to stand here and—
Me: That brings me nicely to my next point, which is that you've announced you're going to sue Americans for $11,000 if they decide they have had enough and want to leave your theater of security at the airport. Now, this question is a two-parter: Do you think it's somehow smarter to keep potential bombers in a crowded TSA line than in a parking lot, and do you think suicide bombers are afraid of getting fined $11,000 in addition to, like, committing suicide?
Pistole: You're oversimplifying what is clearly a complicated—
Me: Oh, speaking of complicated, what about the color-coded security levels? Can you please tell us what specifically Americans should do at magenta level that we shouldn't at mauve? Actual examples, please. Is there some level where we should not pay attention if some dude tries to light his underwear or shoes on fire?
Pistole: Ok, that was DHS, not the TSA, and they just announced they were getting rid of it–
Me: Wow, they're ditching color levels after only 10 years of having a policy with no visible effect except to confuse and scare Americans? I'm impressed with the... you said DHS? Too bad that's not your organization. I was about to give you kudos.
Anyhow, that leads in nicely to my next question, which is, when the TSA decided we all needed to be "safer," what process did it use to decide how to proceed? Did you study the world's safest (and least safe) airports, and correlate that with the number of terrorist threats they face, and imitate their best practices? Did you look at Israel's model, where they rely much more on talking to each passenger and watching for squirrelly responses — a model used by our own border service for a couple hundred years?
Or did you buy the most expensive gadgets you could find from a company that at least seven US representatives and two US senators own stock in?
Pistole: Look, we're finding more terrorists are using powders and liquids in their bombs, and we need to–
Me: Isn't all this talk about liquids and solids just a distraction from the fundamental issue, which is that every terrorist attack we've had since 9/11 was thwarted by vigilant Americans citizens, not the TSA, and all the TSA has done is introduce discomfort and delays into air travel?
Which brings me to this question: If you hired a security guard to watch your house, and 10 years later your neighbors said, "Hey, several times now dudes have tried to steal your shit, but we came over and stopped them each time after your security guy let them through," would you continue to employ him? Especially if every time you tried to enter your house, he grabbed your nuts and took naked pictures of your wife?
Honestly, John, how do you still have a job?
Pistole: Look, we stop lots of attacks before they even—
Me: Except you don't — you crow about it every time one of the passengers thwarts an attack as if you had something to do with it, and then you buy yourself some even more expensive equipment to make yourselves feel like real men, and make us do some new dance while we wait in the security line.
Which is my final question: by making us undress, forcing us to either be touched in inappropriate places or be viewed completely naked, exposing us to unknown amounts of radiation, and generally humiliating us, all the while claiming your agents are above the laws of the United States and somehow in charge of our police force as well, isn't the TSA basically following the techniques of the history's most repressive regimes? By telling us we can't leave security once we started, that this is all for our own good, that we cannot be trusted, aren't you robbing of us of the feeling that we control our own destiny? Aren't you, in fact, creating a population that will not keep defending against terrorist attacks, because you've inculcated a learned helplessness in all of us?
I'm sure you've heard Benjamin Franklin's quote a million times: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." But have you ever really listened to it? Because it seems almost unthinkably arrogant for you to tell us that after 200 years of living under the American constitution Ben helped write, you have a better way, which is to make us "safe" with fear and personal invasion. It seems like you are pissing on the graves of the millions of Americans who died defending our constitution in world wars and other struggles, who were willing to trade their lives for not their liberty but ours, for you to tell us that now we must give up our constitutional protections in order to be safe in our lives.
You, sir, work against the constitution of the United States, you work against the happiness and welfare of the American people, and I brand you a terrorist.
Pistole: Fair enough.
TSA Breast Milk Screening Harassment Updated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XhnZlmLGK8#ws)
http://www.theonion.com/articles/disgusted-tsa-agents-also-calling-for-end-to-body,18557/?utm_souce=popbox (http://www.theonion.com/articles/disgusted-tsa-agents-also-calling-for-end-to-body,18557/?utm_souce=popbox)
No one 'makes' these people do anything...
If they don't want to do what is required to pass the checkpoint, they can simply turn around and leave. :boredom:
Randy T
Indy
My observation is most people here are paranoid.Millions of dollars are being waisted because of a few scared people.
Try dealing with Homeland security - then the going gets tough.
so are the car rentals up in volume now.
Quote from: Mark Olson on November 30, 2010, 03:27:26 PM
so are the car rentals up in volume now.
Maybe.
More likely, a lot of the riders returned to Greyhound. :biggrin:
Airport clientele ain't what it used to be.
Randy T
Indy
Quote from: Klavdy on November 30, 2010, 04:32:04 AM
TSA Breast Milk Screening Harassment Updated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XhnZlmLGK8#ws)
I'm not buyin it......why would she be bringing unrefrigerated breast milk on a plane for her son's dinner??just stick your breast directly in the kids mouth when you get in the door..I think this girl was looking to make some kind of point,get publicity personally I think an all out boycott of the airline industry would be more effective only because once your in their sandbox they have you by the balls, or breastmilk as the case may be
Quote from: Mark Olson on November 30, 2010, 03:27:26 PM
so are the car rentals up in volume now.
So do motor vehicle related fatalities.
Really, more people are dying on the roads because of the TSA's stupid policies, this is factual. (http://www.schneier.com/)
From a study by Cornell University:
"In 2007, the researchers studied specifically the effects of a change to security practices instituted by the TSA in late 2002. They concluded that this change reduced the number of air travellers by 6%, and estimated that consequently, 129 more people died in car accidents in the fourth quarter of 2002.
Extrapolating this rate of fatalities, New York Times contributor Nate Silver remarked that this is equivalent to "four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year."
Israel has fantastic security at their Airports.
It should be the model.
Back to the vid posted earlier:That manager in the vid,if he treated one of your loved ones that way, is there not a man amongst you that would not track down that scumbag and teach him the error of his ways?
He was NOT "Just doing his job".
What vile and despicable creature.
Quote from: Keith on November 30, 2010, 07:16:44 PM
Quote from: Klavdy on November 30, 2010, 04:32:04 AM
TSA Breast Milk Screening Harassment Updated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XhnZlmLGK8#ws)
I'm not buyin it......why would she be bringing unrefrigerated breast milk on a plane for her son's dinner??just stick your breast directly in the kids mouth when you get in the door..I think this girl was looking to make some kind of point,get publicity personally I think an all out boycott of the airline industry would be more effective only because once your in their sandbox they have you by the balls, or breastmilk as the case may be
Apart from when you were an infant,do you have any experience with breast feeding Mothers, babies and their needs?
Boycott the Airlines?
The Airlines don't run the TSA,what point is there in boycotting them?
Quote from: rktmanfj on November 30, 2010, 09:51:48 AM
No one 'makes' these people do anything...
If they don't want to do what is required to pass the checkpoint, they can simply turn around and leave. :boredom:
Randy T
Indy
Randy, you have a direct connection and interest in defending the TSA's practices.
Seems that once you enter airport security, you need to be subjected to it (http://consumerist.com/2010/11/you-might-be-in-serious-for-refusing-to-be-tsa-screened.html)-- whether you decide to fly or not.
Say you don't get an enhanced pat down, you go still through the X-Ray machine,,,
A typical dental X-ray exposes the patient to about 2 millirems of radiation. According to one widely cited estimate, exposing each of 10,000 people to one rem (that is, 1,000 millirems) of radiation will likely lead to 8 excess cancer deaths. Using our assumption of linearity, that means that exposure to the 2 millirems of a typical dental X-ray would lead an individual to have an increased risk of dying from cancer of 16 hundred-thousandths of one percent. Given that very small risk, it is easy to see why most rational people would choose to undergo dental X-rays every few years to protect their teeth.
More importantly for our purposes, assuming that the radiation in a backscatter X-ray is about a hundredth the dose of a dental X-ray, we find that a backscatter X-ray increases the odds of dying from cancer by about 16 ten millionths of one percent. That suggests that for every billion passengers screened with backscatter radiation, about 16 will die from cancer as a result.
Given that there will be 600 million airplane passengers per year, that makes the machines deadlier than the terrorists.
Quote from: Keith on November 30, 2010, 07:16:44 PMI'm not buyin it......why would she be bringing unrefrigerated breast milk on a plane for her son's dinner??
Thought the same thing. They even indicated that she had caused trouble before, and were going to need to play her game/ dog and pony show... Also, where was the kid?
Dan
Quote from: Dan Filetti on November 30, 2010, 08:33:17 PM
Quote from: Keith on November 30, 2010, 07:16:44 PMI'm not buyin it......why would she be bringing unrefrigerated breast milk on a plane for her son's dinner??
Thought the same thing. They even indicated that she had caused trouble before, and were going to need to play her game/ dog and pony show... Also, where was the kid?
Dan
She'd be lucky if she could lactate at all after all that shit.......the kid was at home (I assume home was her intended destination).
Harvy
Quote from: Klavdy on November 30, 2010, 07:50:17 PM
More importantly for our purposes, assuming that the radiation in a backscatter X-ray is about a hundredth the dose of a dental X-ray, we find that a backscatter X-ray increases the odds of dying from cancer by about 16 ten millionths of one percent. That suggests that for every billion passengers screened with backscatter radiation, about 16 will die from cancer as a result.
Given that there will be 600 million airplane passengers per year, that makes the machines deadlier than the terrorists.
Huh? less than 10 people per year is deadlier than the terrorists? Come now. The 9/11 attacks alone killed nearly 3,000 people, all in. To be 'deadlier' would in fact take more than 300 years.
I'm not a fan of the TSA getting all uppity. But this rationale is myopic and not one of your better ones Klavdy.
Dan
Come on Dan, do try and keep up.
How many people have died in Terrorist related air attacks since the introduction of these X-Ray machines?
How many deaths will these machines contribute to?
Have these X-Ray machines been proven to have stopped ANY attempted attacks?
My only point is that if she was there to make a point, and there is some evidence to suggest she was, and if she posted this to further make that point, and manipulate the rest of us in the process, then she got what she deserved.
If it's legit, then yeah, this is yet another example of the TSA coming down on the wrong side of things.
Based on what I saw, I'd bet that she was hoping for conflict, and she got it.
Why did she just happen to have a copy of the TSA rules?
Why did they say she had been there the week before causing trouble?
Why were they talking about play her game/ dog and pony show?
Why did the TSA officer write down her name and put it in his pocket?
If this were Jane Q citizen, yeah, it would piss me off. But this seems staged, and I'll not be manipulated.
Dan
I'm up. Your point was that the backscatter X-ray causes an additional 10 deaths per year which is more deadly that terrorists attacks.
I say this is statistically unfounded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States)
Literally, 10's of thousand have died at the hands of terrorists, in the US alone. Certainly terrorists are 'deadlier' than the backscatter X-ray.
I'll not be manipulated.
It is too late mate, you already have been.
Why did she have the rules?
Better question is why the TSA did not follow them
Staged or not, what justification do the TSA employees have to treat anyone in that way?
Please, don't quote Wikipedia, we've been through why that source is totally unreliable before.
Now, how many people have died in air terror attacks since the introduction of the X-Ray machines?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Quote from: rktmanfj on November 30, 2010, 09:51:48 AM
No one 'makes' these people do anything...
If they don't want to do what is required to pass the checkpoint, they can simply turn around and leave. :boredom:
Randy T
Indy
According to recent reports, NO, you can NOT...... unless you're willing to face a Civil lawsuit and $11,000 fine.
I DON'T fly, except on my bikes, and haven't in a few years, because I refuse to put up with TSAs crap..... They don't do anything worthwhile....
I don't consider their knee-jerk reactions "security"..... Nothing but abuse and "controlling the peons".
Quote from: Klavdy on November 30, 2010, 07:50:17 PM
Quote from: rktmanfj on November 30, 2010, 09:51:48 AM
No one 'makes' these people do anything...
If they don't want to do what is required to pass the checkpoint, they can simply turn around and leave. :boredom:
Randy T
Indy
Randy, you have a direct connection and interest in defending the TSA's practices.
<inflammatory regurgitated media hype snipped>
Okay, Klavdy... you're the expert here, but let's get something straight... While I
do work in the airport, I
DO NOT work for TSA (or any other branch of the US Government), and do not have any interest whatsoever in defending them.
I do, however, get to watch very closely, on a regular basis, what the TSA does.
IMO, this issue has been VERY much overhyped by a media who knows too well that a story doesn't need to be accurate as long as it pulls in the ratings.
This not to say that I agree one bit with what they are doing right now.
Stir this pot all you want, but don't you EVER presume to know what I do, say, or think, unless you get it directly from me.
Randy T
Indy
Quote from: rktmanfj on November 30, 2010, 09:27:39 PM
Quote from: Klavdy on November 30, 2010, 07:50:17 PM
Quote from: rktmanfj on November 30, 2010, 09:51:48 AM
No one 'makes' these people do anything...
If they don't want to do what is required to pass the checkpoint, they can simply turn around and leave. :boredom:
Randy T
Indy
Randy, you have a direct connection and interest in defending the TSA's practices.
<inflammatory regurgitated media hype snipped>
Okay, Klavdy... you're the expert here, but let's get something straight... While I do work in the airport, I DO NOT work for TSA (or any other branch of the US Government), and do not have any interest whatsoever in defending them.
I do, however, get to watch very closely, on a regular basis, what the TSA does.
IMO, this issue has been VERY much overhyped by a media who knows too well that a story doesn't need to be accurate as long as it pulls in the ratings.
This not to say that I agree one bit with what they are doing right now.
Stir this pot all you want, but don't you EVER presume to know what I do, say, or think, unless you get it directly from me.
Randy T
Indy
Shit stir?
Moi?
AGGGHHHH!!!
HE'S ONTO ME!!!!
Been a good one but, made a few blokes think, eh?
All in all though, that wankstain with the breastfeeding chick, that was utter, utter bastardry.
Quote from: Dan Filetti on November 30, 2010, 08:33:17 PM
Quote from: Keith on November 30, 2010, 07:16:44 PMI'm not buyin it......why would she be bringing unrefrigerated breast milk on a plane for her son's dinner??
Thought the same thing. They even indicated that she had caused trouble before, and were going to need to play her game/ dog and pony show... Also, where was the kid?
Dan
Caused trouble?? She filed a
complaint......
Storage of breast milk (from here (http://www.llli.org/FAQ/milkstorage.html):
Storage Guidelines
All milk should be dated before storing. Storing milk in 2-4 ounce amounts may reduce waste. Refrigerated milk has more anti-infective properties than frozen milk. Cool fresh milk in the refrigerator before adding it to previously frozen milk.
Preferably, human milk should be refrigerated or chilled right after it is expressed. Acceptable guidelines for storing human milk are as follows. Store milk:
at room temperature (66-78°F, 19-26°C) for 4 hours (ideal), up to 6 hours (acceptable) (Some sources use 8 hours)
in a refrigerator (<39°F, <4°C) for 72 hours (ideal); up to 8 days (acceptable)
in a freezer (-0.4 to -4°F, -18 to -20°C) for 6 months (ideal) up to 12 months (acceptable)
Looks more like abuse of power to me.....
Klavdy
These are people trying to do their jobs, just people. I don't quite know what you do for a living. But if you were on the job, and someone came there looking to provoke you, intentionally, having done the same thing just a week before, tell me you're not going to do what you can to fuck right back with that person.
You did not answer my question. Why did she have a copy of the rules? The answer: to fuck with these guys. Well, she got fucked with right back -just like you or I would do in their shoes. Again, I have little sympathy for her. I would have greater outrage if she were not asking/ in fact begging to be screwed with. Should they have done what they did? -No. But they are human.
The TSA are at best, largely a bunch of apathetic, incompetent, idiots -this group included. At worst they abuse their power, on this I believe we can agree. In the end, it is in fact a miracle that we have not had more loss.
The other side to this is as follows: If we assume that we can continue to ascribe to the Blackstone ratio, whereby "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffers" then we will be killed off in greater numbers then can ultimately be sustained. This latest batch of terrorists don't play by the rules that Blackstone understood, they 'get 72 virgins, if they just kill themselves and as many of us as they can in the process. It's a tough enemy to fight, that does not mind, in fact welcomes, dying. I do not have the answers to what to do here.
I do not fault the TSA for trying though. I'd submit to a backscatter X-ray, if it means that I may be safer. No problem, what's the big deal?
Keep stirring though, fun.
Quote from: RichBaker on November 30, 2010, 09:57:40 PM
Caused trouble?? She filed a complaint......
I'm merely paraphrasing what I saw the video. Go back and watch it again. She was ostensibly detained because she had apparently been there the week before, agitating. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain her goal was to provoke these TSA agents into doing something complaint-worthy.
Think about it: how would you react if someone came to where you worked, with the expressed goal of screwing with you, with an eye on proving some point about rules you had nothing to do with writing. How would you feel? What would you do if you knew this person had also done something similar only a week before? Again, am I saying it's right? -No. But from where I sit this deserves no outrage.
Dan
(popcorn)
just shows that people are stupid and dangerous and SHOULD BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS!!! thats why i like helmets and hate intercoms.:D and particularly large bodies of people who have our "best interests" and "welfare" and "security" in mind. worst bit is we keep paying em voting them in and doing nothing to change circumstances..... along the vein of "hey.... we are polluting the earth :boredom: with fossil fuels.... lets make ELECTRIC cars!!!" yay. power corrupts absolute power corrupts absoluytly
Quote from: Dan Filetti on November 30, 2010, 10:47:35 PM
Quote from: RichBaker on November 30, 2010, 09:57:40 PM
Caused trouble?? She filed a complaint......
I'm merely paraphrasing what I saw the video. Go back and watch it again. She was ostensibly detained because she had apparently been there the week before, agitating. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain her goal was to provoke these TSA agents into doing something complaint-worthy.
Think about it: how would you react if someone came to where you worked, with the expressed goal of screwing with you, with an eye on proving some point about rules you had nothing to do with writing. How would you feel? What would you do if you knew this person had also done something similar only a week before? Again, am I saying it's right? -No. But from where I sit this deserves no outrage.
Dan
(popcorn)
One would act professionally, not let subjective opinion cloud the objective fact that there are rules and procedures that must be followed in these settings.
This is not about the breastfeeding mother, it is about the corruption and malfeasance of the TSA.
It makes no difference what she may or may not have done prior to this episode, it is not up to the TSA to "Teach her a lesson"
So, following your logic,Cops can pull you over('coz that's where the Cops work)and if you ask them for probable or primary cause for the stop(screwing with the Cop) they can say "Fuck You, I didn't write the rules so they don't apply to me, I'll do as I please ,citizen."
Malfeasance is intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons.
This whole scan or pat down thing is overkill and unnecessary. The Israeli's seem to manage good security without all the intrusiveness.
For the price of each of these machines (which seems like nothing more than some politicians guaranteeing their buddies a nice profit) you could buy and train many explosive sniffing dogs that would be more accurate, productive, and less intrusive than this.
Unless forced to for business reasons, I don't plan on flying anymore. I have nothing to hide, but this is truly Orwellian and I don't care to be exposed to X-rays any more than medically necessary.
The terrorists are succeeding in their mission to remove all traces of a free democratic republic (and shred our constitution) from earth.
Lets send someone thru exam area fully dress in motorcycle gear. Everything - Thermos, Headsock, Motocross Helmet with mirrored goggles, Pads, Pants, Overpants, Rainsuits, MotoBoots with all metal clasps and bindings, Oh - can't forget the gloves -The ones with all metal nuckle protecters! Everything -The Works .Now lets film not this guy - but all the people waiting behind him.
Myself personally feels all of this precautionary examining scanning can be eliminated. For all who chose to fly will be seated in a 300 passenger Glider and will be tow to their destination of choice with complinary music and selected beverage. They get unruly , tow pilot starts whipping vehicle attached to rear and says over speaker "we are experiencing a slight level of turbulence". You just have to start thinking out of box - or plane in this case - to come up with answers. This can't be any crazier than a FJ with a sidecar
Quote from: Klavdy on December 01, 2010, 12:28:51 AM
One would act professionally, not let subjective opinion cloud the objective fact that there are rules and procedures that must be followed in these settings.
This is not about the breastfeeding mother, it is about the corruption and malfeasance of the TSA.
It makes no difference what she may or may not have done prior to this episode, it is not up to the TSA to "Teach her a lesson"
So, following your logic,Cops can pull you over('coz that's where the Cops work)and if you ask them for probable or primary cause for the stop(screwing with the Cop) they can say "Fuck You, I didn't write the rules so they don't apply to me, I'll do as I please ,citizen."
Malfeasance is intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons.
You're being intellectually dishonest Klavdy, and you likely know it, so I'm not going to invest a lot of energy on challenging you, other than to say this.
It DOES make a difference if her agenda is to create a situation where she can file a complaint, get the video, and post it out for all to be mortified. Just like it makes a difference, using your analogy, if you leave your house right now looking for cops to F* with. When if you actually get caught by a cop you've been F*ing with, you cannot honestly expect to be treated the same as the guy getting pulled over for speeding 10 over. As long as the cop does nothing that is illegal, or unethical, it is ridiculous to cry foul when you are treated more harshly than someone else. My only point has been, and continues to be, if you go looking for trouble, NO ONE should be surprised when you actually find it.
Oh, and by the way, can ANYONE tell me what in the entire video, the TSA did that was a) illegal or b) unethical? They held someone for what, 45 minutes? She missed a flight. Unless I'm mistaken both of these things, while inconvenient, are well within their power to do. You'd don't want to fly? -Don't, it's really that simple.
Dan
(popcorn)
Quote from: rktmanfj on November 30, 2010, 09:51:48 AM
No one 'makes' these people do anything...
If they don't want to do what is required to pass the checkpoint, they can simply turn around and leave. :boredom:
Randy T
Indy
yeah, sure. What will you do when you are subjected to the same stuff when driving across states, or cities, or even walking from one part of your city to another?
You shouldn't even need to show your ID to fly domestically IMO
remember the G8 summit in seattle? even having a PIN that was against it and you were not allowed into that part of the city.
:music:
Quote from: wakdady on December 01, 2010, 09:16:47 AM
Quote from: rktmanfj on November 30, 2010, 09:51:48 AM
No one 'makes' these people do anything...
If they don't want to do what is required to pass the checkpoint, they can simply turn around and leave. :boredom:
Randy T
Indy
You shouldn't even need to show your ID to fly domestically IMO
If you really believe that, you are to naive to reason with, so I won't even bother to try.
Randy T
Indy
ah, yes, the ad hominem attack. Thanks for that.
Quote from: wakdady on December 01, 2010, 10:43:10 AM
ah, yes, the ad hominem attack. Thanks for that.
I missed that one in college somehow and had to look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
Cool! I can now honestly say I learned something today! :good2:
"Befehl ist Befehl"
Quote from: Klavdy on December 01, 2010, 02:44:26 PM
"Befehl ist Befehl"
I would have thought that by now, this thread would have served its purpose for you.
Apparently not.
Randy T
Indy
Quote from: Klavdy on December 01, 2010, 02:44:26 PM
"Befehl ist Befehl"
caveat emptor.
Did you not read the words: "as long as the cop does nothing that is illegal, or unethical" Befehl ist Befehl, as a justification, is neither legal or ethical.
We all have latitude within what is legal, and/ or ethical to reward or punish those we encounter, depending on, in large part, how we are treated by them.
If you want to lie to yourself and say that in their shoes you would not at least consider punishing this trouble-maker, then so be it.
All this intellectual cock fighting has got me all confused. I don't want to sound sexist, but I'd shag that young mum in hart beat.
That'll piss the feminists off.
Quote from: andyoutandabout on December 01, 2010, 04:29:24 PM
All this intellectual cock fighting has got me all confused. I don't want to sound sexist, but I'd shag that young mum in hart beat.
That'll piss the feminists off.
mmmmmmmmmmm Booooooobs !!!
kookaloo with nipples! :good2:
haha! i was gonna comment on her behind, but i opted to keep quiet. no longer :diablo:
Quote from: wakdady on December 01, 2010, 05:09:28 PM
haha! i was gonna comment on her behind, but i opted to keep quiet. no longer :diablo:
I'd hit her in the shitter, with the one-eyed critter!
Quote from: indyblue on December 01, 2010, 12:42:24 AM
This whole scan or pat down thing is overkill and unnecessary. The Israeli's seem to manage good security without all the intrusiveness.
For the price of each of these machines (which seems like nothing more than some politicians guaranteeing their buddies a nice profit) you could buy and train many explosive sniffing dogs that would be more accurate, productive, and less intrusive than this.
Unless forced to for business reasons, I don't plan on flying anymore. I have nothing to hide, but this is truly Orwellian and I don't care to be exposed to X-rays any more than medically necessary.
The terrorists are succeeding in their mission to remove all traces of a free democratic republic (and shred our constitution) from earth.
Yep... just google "Chertoff+body scanner" and see the corruption and greed.....
Quote from: Dan Filetti on December 01, 2010, 08:37:36 AM
Quote from: Klavdy on December 01, 2010, 12:28:51 AM
One would act professionally, not let subjective opinion cloud the objective fact that there are rules and procedures that must be followed in these settings.
This is not about the breastfeeding mother, it is about the corruption and malfeasance of the TSA.
It makes no difference what she may or may not have done prior to this episode, it is not up to the TSA to "Teach her a lesson"
So, following your logic,Cops can pull you over('coz that's where the Cops work)and if you ask them for probable or primary cause for the stop(screwing with the Cop) they can say "Fuck You, I didn't write the rules so they don't apply to me, I'll do as I please ,citizen."
Malfeasance is intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons.
You're being intellectually dishonest Klavdy, and you likely know it, so I'm not going to invest a lot of energy on challenging you, other than to say this.
It DOES make a difference if her agenda is to create a situation where she can file a complaint, get the video, and post it out for all to be mortified. Just like it makes a difference, using your analogy, if you leave your house right now looking for cops to F* with. When if you actually get caught by a cop you've been F*ing with, you cannot honestly expect to be treated the same as the guy getting pulled over for speeding 10 over. As long as the cop does nothing that is illegal, or unethical, it is ridiculous to cry foul when you are treated more harshly than someone else. My only point has been, and continues to be, if you go looking for trouble, NO ONE should be surprised when you actually find it.
Oh, and by the way, can ANYONE tell me what in the entire video, the TSA did that was a) illegal or b) unethical? They held someone for what, 45 minutes? She missed a flight. Unless I'm mistaken both of these things, while inconvenient, are well within their power to do. You'd don't want to fly? -Don't, it's really that simple.
Dan
(popcorn)
So, you're saying that what the TSA agents did to her WAS ethical and legal?? I don't think so.......
Quote from: Dan Filetti on December 01, 2010, 03:43:03 PM
Quote from: Klavdy on December 01, 2010, 02:44:26 PM
"Befehl ist Befehl"
caveat emptor.
Did you not read the words: "as long as the cop does nothing that is illegal, or unethical" Befehl ist Befehl, as a justification, is neither legal or ethical.
We all have latitude within what is legal, and/ or ethical to reward or punish those we encounter, depending on, in large part, how we are treated by them.
If you want to lie to yourself and say that in their shoes you would not at least consider punishing this trouble-maker, then so be it.
Where in their job description does it allow them to PUNISH anyone?? Cops as well!! Their sole purpose in life(TSA) is to
ensure the safety of the flying public...... Their attempting to PUNISH anyone IS unethical and illegal!
Quote from: RichBaker on December 01, 2010, 06:55:05 PM
So, you're saying that what the TSA agents did to her WAS ethical and legal?? I don't think so.......
Rich, please enlighten me. I await, on the edge of my seat, your wisdom here. Point to specific things in the video that the TSA agents did that were outside of their jurisdiction, illegal, or unethical. They did not hurt her, yell at her or point weapons at her. They side-lined her, and called the police, precisely because they believed, as I do, that she was there not to travel, but to advance a different agenda. It would not surprise me in the slightest to find out she was not even a real mother/ or that was not even her own breast milk.
I will hold out the possibility that I have incorrectly assumed that she came there looking for exactly what she got, but I would not bet on that.
Oh, and for the record, I'd shag her too BTW....
Quote from: RichBaker on December 01, 2010, 06:58:58 PM
Where in their job description does it allow them to PUNISH anyone?? Cops as well!! Their sole purpose in life(TSA) is to ensure the safety of the flying public...... Their attempting to PUNISH anyone IS unethical and illegal!
Read my earlier posts. perfect humans/ machines would not have this reaction, we can all aspire to be as good as machines I guess. But these are real people doing their jobs and this woman was there, in my opinion, to make that job more difficult on purpose. I'm guessing that you and the K-man are both lying to yourselves if you think that, if you were one of these guys, being intentionally *F*'d with, you'd treat her exactly the same as the person just before or just after that went about their business. ANY different treatment, constitutes what I'm calling 'punishment'. Thereafter it is merely shades of gray.
(popcorn)
Some people trying to feel important if you ask me.She was fucked with the first time and more so the second.What a waste of time and money.They screwed up and they know it thats why they didnt send a full copy.Trying to create job security.
I'm enjoying this.
Here it is, right off the TSA web-site, the woman was WRONG as I read it:
****To ensure the health and welfare of certain air travelers, in the absence of suspicious activity or items, greater than 3 ounces of the following liquids, gels and aerosols are permitted through the security checkpoint in reasonable quantities for the duration of your itinerary (all exceptions must be presented to the security officer in front of the checkpoint):
* Baby formula, breast milk, and juice for infants and toddlers.****
THE BABY WAS NOT WITH HER, so she is not trying to "ensure the health and welfare of certain air travelers" [her baby].
A fairly easy case could be made that the other defined criteria "in the absence of suspicious activity" was not met either.
I'm telling you, something sure seems rotten in Denmark. I suspect the media would have picked this up and run with it, if it passed the smell test, notice it has not...
Do ya think Larry King owns an FJ
Do you guys have talent night around campfire at night on Rallyes - Maybe we should reinact film clip. Whos gonna be who?
My turn for random disjointed thoughts, kinda like this thread.
As I see it, both parties are wrong ergo, offsetting penalties.
A "mother" flying without her baby, carrying breast milk in non prescribed containers, can be viewed as probable cause to be suspicious.
Sounds like just the tactic a fanitic would use to get bad stuff on a plane.
For some reason, worldwide, all security services (not just the TSA) have been freaked out about liquids accessible to passengers in the cabin.
They say a small amount mixed together can bring a plane down. Do they have cause to be alarmed? I dunno, they're the experts, I'm not.
Re: The video. The TSA weenies had to know that their actions were on camera, and thus just a subpoena away from public exposure.
This will be a good training exercise for all TSA employees. Ya better know the rules on what and in this case, what not to do.
I hope everyone keeps in mind that the TSA, as flawed as they may be, are here to do a job. I think an important job. Yes it's a PIA.
I have a solution: If a woman, traveling alone (with no baby) wants to carry breast milk on board , no problem.
She just has to leave the milk in the original containers.....No problem!
Jammie time.
when i was watching the video, a few minutes in, i wondered where the baby was...
so there are some good points being brought up against her and what her M.O was might have been.
but that is also to say that people such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr were just out to cause trouble and prove a point. When in fact, they were out to prove a point. And look what became of it.
Or say that American girl that got run over in Palestine by a US built bulldozer operated by Israeli's illegally tearing down Palestinian homes to steal more land.
If this was the "baby milk hijackers" motive, than I applaud her.
We all tend to take a back seat at all the injustices around us because; we have jobs, food, warm showers. We aren't willing to fight over anything. Unless of course the propaganda machine is on full tilt and you drink the cool-aid fast enough. Then it becomes; "gotta git dem terrorists!" blow shit up, invade countries, spread freedom, fight proxy war kinda deal.
I myself, am a hypocrite in all this. As my inaction makes me complicit in all of our wrong doings
now i will sit back and wait to see who will label me first.
Quote from: Pat Conlon on December 02, 2010, 01:45:36 AM
My turn for random disjointed thoughts, kinda like this thread.
As I see it, both parties are wrong ergo, offsetting penalties.
A "mother" flying without her baby, carrying breast milk in non prescribed containers, can be viewed as probable cause to be suspicious.
Sounds like just the tactic a fanitic would use to get bad stuff on a plane.
For some reason, worldwide, all security services (not just the TSA) have been freaked out about liquids accessible to passengers in the cabin.
They say a small amount mixed together can bring a plane down. Do they have cause to be alarmed? I dunno, they're the experts, I'm not.
Re: The video. The TSA weenies had to know that their actions were on camera, and thus just a subpoena away from public exposure.
This will be a good training exercise for all TSA employees. Ya better know the rules on what and in this case, what not to do.
I hope everyone keeps in mind that the TSA, as flawed as they may be, are here to do a job. I think an important job. Yes it's a PIA.
I have a solution: If a woman, traveling alone (with no baby) wants to carry breast milk on board , no problem.
She just has to leave the milk in the original containers.....No problem!
Jammie time.
A simple taste test would have cleared this up , I am sure one of the TSA guys would have volunteered to compare the bottle to the tap. :biggrin:
Quote from: Dan Filetti on December 01, 2010, 07:29:01 PM
Quote from: RichBaker on December 01, 2010, 06:58:58 PM
Where in their job description does it allow them to PUNISH anyone?? Cops as well!! Their sole purpose in life(TSA) is to ensure the safety of the flying public...... Their attempting to PUNISH anyone IS unethical and illegal!
Read my earlier posts. perfect humans/ machines would not have this reaction, we can all aspire to be as good as machines I guess. But these are real people doing their jobs and this woman was there, in my opinion, to make that job more difficult on purpose. I'm guessing that you and the K-man are both lying to yourselves if you think that, if you were one of these guys, being intentionally *F*'d with, you'd treat her exactly the same as the person just before or just after that went about their business. ANY different treatment, constitutes what I'm calling 'punishment'. Thereafter it is merely shades of gray.
(popcorn)
I still don't see where SHE was intentionally F'ing with the TSA .... All I see is your opinion that she is. Whereas it is quite obvious that TSA is F'ing her around.
Quote from: RichBaker on December 02, 2010, 07:27:43 PM
I still don't see where SHE was intentionally F'ing with the TSA .... All I see is your opinion that she is. Whereas it is quite obvious that TSA is F'ing her around.
You are correct, it is my opinion. However, it is an informed opinion. I base this opinion on the following:
1) She brought breast milk, in a bag, but no child for a flight that takes ~1H 15M, with security and logistics on either end perhaps 4 hours -why??
2) Why not leave it in it's 'original container' for that time, which she easily could have done? If she needed to, she easily could have expressed it, and discarded if she was worried about engorgement. This is an extremely common practice among nursing mothers.
3) where the F* was the kid -In LA?
4) She easily could have re-charged her milk supply for the kid over that 4hours.
5) Watch closely her posture, when the cop walks into the booth -she got her arms on her hips -defiantly, facing away from him, she does not look at him for a while.
6) She digs in, and let's it go for as long as it did. She had several opportunities to diffuse the situation, she does not take advantage of any of them.
7) The media did not pick this up and run with it as they are so very prone to do. Conjecture: because they, like me, smell a rat.
8 ) She had a printed copy of the FAA rules with her -suspicious, to say the least. -How does this not speak to her coming prepared for a fight??!!
9) There is reference to her being there the week before, having also caused trouble. Is she incapable of learning?
10) The fact that she requested the footage, and *somehow*, it wound up on youtube.
11) Her interpretation of the rules, was patently wrong from where I sit.
Again, I hold out the possibility that I have assumed incorrectly, but I would not bet on it.
Dan
Quote from: wakdady on December 02, 2010, 10:50:04 AM
We all tend to take a back seat at all the injustices around us because; we have jobs, food, warm showers. We aren't willing to fight over anything. Unless of course the propaganda machine is on full tilt and you drink the cool-aid fast enough. Then it becomes; "gotta git dem terrorists!" blow shit up, invade countries, spread freedom, fight proxy war kinda deal.
I myself, am a hypocrite in all this. As my inaction makes me complicit in all of our wrong doings, now i will sit back and wait to see who will label me first.
Naaa Henry, I'm not gonna label you. You love FJ's, that's good enough for me.
For me, it's about picking your battles. Here's one injustice that can have far ranging implications:
http://www.fjowners.com/index.php?topic=3105.0 (http://www.fjowners.com/index.php?topic=3105.0)
<edit> As requested, I moved my reply out of this TSA topic and over to the guns section. Pat
Quote
You are correct, it is my opinion. However, it is an informed opinion. I base this opinion on the following:
1) She brought breast milk, in a bag, but no child for a flight that takes ~1H 15M, with security and logistics on either end perhaps 4 hours -why??
2) Why not leave it in it's 'original container' for that time, which she easily could have done? If she needed to, she easily could have expressed it, and discarded if she was worried about engorgement. This is an extremely common practice among nursing mothers.
3) where the F* was the kid -In LA?
4) She easily could have re-charged her milk supply for the kid over that 4hours.
5) Watch closely her posture, when the cop walks into the booth -she got her arms on her hips -defiantly, facing away from him, she does not look at him for a while.
6) She digs in, and let's it go for as long as it did. She had several opportunities to diffuse the situation, she does not take advantage of any of them.
7) The media did not pick this up and run with it as they are so very prone to do. Conjecture: because they, like me, smell a rat.
8 ) She had a printed copy of the FAA rules with her -suspicious, to say the least. -How does this not speak to her coming prepared for a fight??!!
9) There is reference to her being there the week before, having also caused trouble. Is she incapable of learning?
10) The fact that she requested the footage, and *somehow*, it wound up on youtube.
11) Her interpretation of the rules, was patently wrong from where I sit.
Again, I hold out the possibility that I have assumed incorrectly, but I would not bet on it.
Dan
Normally, I don't have opinions that I'd share verbally on subjects like this one, but I'm siding with Dan on this. The argument in the video about transporting the "product" so that her child may eat in a few hours is flawed, as she's storing fresher product elsewhere.
She went looking for a situation and she found it.
The maxim, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" springs to mind.
I see this as the TSA operatives abuse of power. You take high school dropouts, give them what should be a very highly regarded position of trust, then bore them to death with routine and detail. Nevertheless, they still have a uniform and enough power to bully anyone who even thinks about challenging their authority. While there may be some method of appealing their instant rulings in the fullness of time, the immediate result is that the passenger has been delayed sufficiently to miss their flight and generally lose the cost of that flight plus the general upset of your schedule.
I find that I dress differently when travelling than normal. Not only do I make sure I have no sharps in my pockets or carry-on luggage, but I try to comply with their ever increasing petty restrictions so I'm not inconvienced any more than unavoidable. Still, I seem to be taken out of line or stopped once through security for "extra" (supposedly) "random" checks.
I can't even blame only the US TSA for this, as its happened to me in Sydney when I'd only been an "in-transit" passenger having been thoroughly checked in Melbourne. And in San Francisco, Detroit, and Las Vegas too. I haven't traveled to or through US since the newest round of restrictions, so I don't quite know what I'll be up for.
I don't even think I'd mind if the time and inconvience would actually make my flying safer. I don't believe it does and the imposition on my time and the invasion of my privacy is therefore unwarranted.
As for the mother in the glass booth - they could have easily taken the (declared) milk decanted it into a double plastic bag (the bags they give those who don't bring their own quart bag) and had the flight attendant maintain possession during the flight. The choice to delay, harrass, and intimidate, the passenger was unproductive, IMO
Cheers,
Arnie