DO YOU THINK THIS WOMAN DESERVED A PAT DOWN?

The Airline industry has long ago proven itself to be a failed experiment, and this is just one more example of it. Screw the TSA, and screw the airlines! Ride the rails, I say!

You inviting yourself to lunch?

TSA Agents Having Some Problems Grasping Procedures for the New Molestation Searches


Yesterday we went over the new TSA molestation pat-downs, which are their way of convincing you to opt into the only-slightly-less-humiliating full-body scanning. Even in the best of circumstances—we suggested—this tactic is a recipe for disaster. It's generally a bad idea to tell the people that you're trying to help that you're abusing them for their own good. Said one TSA worker: "nobody's going to [choose the pat-down] once they find out what we're going to do."

But of course we're talking about the TSA, so the best case scenario is pretty much a non-starter. This is an organization where workers, in between sometimes abusing their power, have a bad habit of trying to enforce rules that don't actually exist. Such problems have historically affected TSA screening procedures:

Goldblog reader Bob Covington writes... a few years ago... I was due to fly from Regan National to wherever and I was picked at random, as I always am, for secondary screening. It got too personal very quickly and I objected. I said 'That's enough. Stop.' He said I could not object. I said 'I'm not flying today. I'm leaving.' and he said I couldn't leave and that if I wanted he could bring the police over. I in fact called the officer over myself who confirmed that these knuckleheads could not force me to fly. I got my things and left.



Thus, unsurprisingly, all this is happening again with the new molestation screenings. People are being plucked out of regular lines, moved to new lines while their possessions are just left languishing on conveyor belts, and flyers are in general being made miserable by TSA agents who haven't quite figured out how the opt-out procedure works. Asked a NYT reporter who had the pleasure of going through the process: "could we please start communicating better about the procedures, preferably without shouting or insulting our intelligence?" Apparently not.

Put most bluntly: these new pat-downs give more power and demand more responsibility from an organization that's already bad at wielding its power and overloaded in its responsibilities. No wonder TSA agents are mockingly laughing at journalists who opt out of the scans.

And don't expect this controversy to go away any time soon. Americans have put up with significant inconveniences when it comes to travel since 9/11, but there's something about this situation—the disgusting invasiveness, mostly—that's causing a real backlash. The Drudge Report has picked it up, although unfortunately their link went to a particularly crazy and not particularly credible part of the Internet (of course). But crazy or not, credible or not, this is a story now. And it should be.

Mild difficulties when travelling overseas old chum, what what tally ho and all that rot.

The TSA has over 56,000 employees and with such a number it is obvious they are pretty much standard products of the US socialisation system.

It is an easy step therefore to assume that the US complainants on this thread would be behaving much as they do if they worked for the TSA as they are also typical products of the same sort of upbringing.

It is also the case that those in authority over the employees of the TSA are duly elected by the people of the US.

In view of that I cannot see how the complaints have any justification. The injuries, and alleged injuries, if such they are, are self-inflicted. And they only apply anyway to about 16% of the population on a yearly basis and to less than 1% in this big travel week.

If human nature is any guide I would expect the most high profile complainants to be patted down with extra care.

Submission seems the best procedure and it might be seen as a sort of justice in view of the submission flyers unthinkingly expect from non-flyers in relation to the vapour trails they make, which partially blot out the sun's benificent rays, the shite they pollute the atmosphere with, the unholy racket they make near their take off and landing points and the cost of their habits to those of us who have taken Goethe's advice about sitting quietly in our rooms not the least of which contributes to the funding of the terrorists.

You just forgot that our habits are just the consequences of the advancement of science and humanity in general.

Your sitting quietly in your room, indulging in some habits like watching the horse-races on telly, after your hot bath, are subject to the very same criticisms as are those of the frequent flyers that are doing so for earning a living..

Not if you're having beans and tuna.

Airports report more than 90% of passengers go through the scanners. Passengers opting for pat downs are those with artificial joints, old, obese, deformed fuglies, who wants to pat those down anyway?

And I wonder if scanners interfere with cardiac pacemakers?

Yes it does.

As I said in a prior post, my husband has an implanted defibrillator, and he can't go through scanners.

It wouldn't make it go off, but it could deactivate it, so it wouldn't go off if needed.

However, people with pacemakers/defibrillators are well aware of this.

I missed that. How about artificial joints and obese passengers do scanners work for them?

it's funny, the more i read this thread, the more i realize, i don't care what happens at the airports, there are causes that have no impact on my life that i can get behind and feel passionate about, but this one, nada, i've flown once in my life (almost 40 years ago and within my own country), and never plan to fly again (love trains and busses, guess if i ever want to go abroad i'll have to find passage on a ship), so go ahead TSA, irradiate, pat down, strip folks naked and make them walk on hot coals, it makes for funny stories on the evening news if nothing else

Yeah - I do fly and I don't give a crap either. They get me back and forth to see my mother, you know - they give you good tv shows and movies - great music - and the food is not that bad either.
It's sounds to me like a bunch of spoiled brats whining because people make them walk a path they don't feel like walking...then don't...and get over it!

Poorly thought stance, as usual..

People like you just make the world tougher for others..

In what way? I'm not allowed to have my opinion? That makes life tougher for others?
I don't care enough about walking through a scanner three times a year to make an issue of it one way or another.
How does/will that have an effect on anyone else's flying experience - never mind the toughness of their lives?

Your acceptance of abuse by TSA is affecting my life..

I could retort with the same kind of insults but I'll restrain..

I'm not a whining spoiled brat, just travelling a bit more than you do, therefore encountering a lot more safety controls than you..

So, now I'm responsible for making sure that everyone else gets to travel without being bothered by something that isn't a bother to me?
If you travel for your work, maybe your employer should take a stance on these security restrictions that are upsetting and having a negative effect on their employees.
Why the hell do you think these people will listen to my little, lone voice?
And honestly - as I said - I'm just thankful the airlines get me back and forth to see my mother.
I can't take care of everyone else's travel issues and arrangements.
You know - is anyone getting waterboarded or raped here?

Because in the grand scheme of things, I think spendius is correct. Those of us who do fly and get to where we're going safely are probably among the privileged- I'm just not gonna make a fuss about something so petty when you know - people are starving and children are being bombed, and people are dying of cancer.

Yeah, waah, waah, waah - they're making me walk through a scanner when I DON'T want to...I just don't feel unlucky or violated or inconvenienced.
If you do - protest. I don't.

Who are you talking to? Aidan was polite.

I sympathize and empathize with the frequent fliers, i.e. Francis.......but only to a certain extent.

Part of this is because although I fly, it is not that often, so no, I'll freely admit it doesn't effect me much.

As far as frequent fliers, some accept this, some are very upset, and there are a million points in between.

Some, in my opinion, get totally out of line with their complaints. Others adjust to various levels to it.
This policy might change, and that will cause some people to complain about the change, whatever it is.
In a nutshell, that's the part that irritates me about this topic, political threads, etc.
Everyone wants to be made happy it seems, and there is no possible way to do that.
Francis is unhappy that Aidan way of thinking might effect him. The fact that dj doesn't care at all makes others, who want everyone to be up in arms about this, unhappy. (that attitude reminds me of a bumper sticker I sometimes see. "If you're not shocked and appalled, you haven't been paying attention" What about the people who have been paying attention, and aren't shocked and appalled?)

The fact is, there ARE a lot of whiners out there. They are shocked and appalled they can't get their way, and are inconveniced by something. Where the rubber meets the road, that is what this is all about. Being inconvenienced, and not liking it.
Oh, we can worry about the health effects, while we sip on a starbucks cappuccino that probably has more negative effects on our health.

Choices, choices, choices. We all want to have choices. Well, we do have choices with this issue. Unfortunately, none of the choices will make some people happy. That doesn't negate the fact they have choices.

I think it's marvelous that some of us have such a high standard of living that we can afford to have to make a choice over something like this.

Right after 9/11, when things were really crazy at the airports, I had to listen to my boss complain constantly, and I mean CONSTANTLY, about the new security measures.
Then she whined to me about her loss of freedom, and I couldn't stand it any longer.
I said "Don't you realize freedom has a price? You're not the only one going through this, everyone is. The price of freedom in this case is having to spend a few minutes of your time in a way you don't want."

I know she still complained afterwards, but she stopped complaining to me.

Is there a better way?

I'm sure there is. If changes are made to that way, someone will be unhappy.

I think people would put up with it more and complain less if we actually thought these measures were going to solve the problem, chai. We all do things we don't especially like (drive a certain speed, pay taxes, etc) every day but the goal is acceptable (less deaths/accidents, infrastructure) so we do it. Well, except for Mr. Rangel.

And I think if the pat-downs weren't so invasive, they'd be more acceptable. It's these stories of groping and whatnot that are getting people pissed off, and the question of "If this doesn't work, what's next?"

I don't fly a lot, either, maybe 4 or 5 times a year and I have no problem going through a scanner. I would not fly, though, if those invasive pat-downs became mandatory.

And I think, Aidan, you are really off the mark referring to everyone as whiners, spoilt brats, and the like. People are concerned about the lengths the authorities are going to in the name of security; their physical privacy is being invaded, and likely needlessly so, and they are just stating that.

You asked if you weren't allowed to have an opinion, well of course you are, but so are others. Aidan, maybe you should just leave this thread. We know your point of view and you sound fed up with ours.