Stay classy America
- Thread starter @Li3n
- Start date
- Status
Title should be "Stay classy TSA" not America.
Old, but one of my faves. Language NSFW.
His title is inaccurate as I don't see the hands of millions of people forcing that old woman to remove her diaper. It was a bad judgement call and reprehensible act from a security guard working for a ineffective security company. Granted, it's a government reponsibility to regulate their employess, I don't see the need to throw blame around or exaggerate it when it's clear that it should be placed at the solely at the feet of the TSA.
What it represents is a bunch of rejected Walmart applicant and baby momma bullies that I wouldn't trust to clean the airport toilets.
Not a week goes by where you don't see another story about how they've humiliated and demeaned yet another law-abiding passenger while the dangerous stuff goes right on past without a second glance. Until the examiners point out how the screeners fucked up yet again.
Not a week goes by where you don't see another story about how they've humiliated and demeaned yet another law-abiding passenger while the dangerous stuff goes right on past without a second glance. Until the examiners point out how the screeners fucked up yet again.
Actually Canada is my country. Sorry if I gave the impression that I'm American citizen - technically I am, but I don't reside in the U.S.A.
I agree that the TSA is creating bad publicity for America, but it's a minority of the government and people as a whole. It's irrational to color all of America by the actions of a ineffective, and incompetent organization.
Dave
Staff member
The biggest problem is that even though I'd be willing to bet a majority of Americans disagree with the TSA tactics, it would be extremely difficult to stop them now as they are a government entity and these have a way of becoming like a snowball running down a mountain. The TSA is being used as a tool to keep people afraid and to keep businesses in power. As a citizen, I don't have a lobbyist. I really should because that's what my elected officials are suppose to be, but they have been bought by special interests and big business.
And this has been Dave's Cynical Monday statement.
And this has been Dave's Cynical Monday statement.
C
Chibibar
That is sad. This is another article that shows that TSA is NOT doing their job properly (imo). It is common sense just to swab for explosive if they are "that worry" about it, but force a person battling leukemia to take off the diaper and pat down?
Adequately preparing for an airline trip should now include checking out the TSA website and making sure you understand what is going to happen. If they did that, they would understand that wheelchair users undergo enhanced screening that includes a patdown, and that if any clothing gets in the way of the patdown, it will have to be removed.
I understand people are upset about this, but unfortunately terrorists aren't above putting explosives or ceramic knives in a "full" adult diaper, or in the tubing of the wheelchair. Quite frankly I'm surprised we haven't seen someone surgically install explosives inside their abdomen, wait a month for everything to heal and traces of explosive to be washed away, and then blow up a plane that way.
We either accept these very invasive procedures, or we pull back on how much we check for things, and live with a hijacking every year or so.
Unfortunately for the ill and infirm, and for those with other special travel needs, 99% of the people who go through the checkpoints aren't bothered at all, and so they are willing to make others suffer so they can increase their personal level of security by an extra percent or two. Not a big increase, but since it comes at little personal cost they will deal with it, even if it means a great deal of discomfort for a minority of other passengers.
I don't know what the answer is, though. Traveling via train or bus sounds preferable for trips under 300 miles these days. We'll be traveling to California with a baby in September so I guess I'll find out how problematic it is at that point, but we won't need to deal with formula, and we'll certainly be checking out the TSA, airline, and airport websites prior to leaving to make sure our bases are covered.
We have traveled with a baby since 9/11 and it wasn't a problem then - that was 2006 or 2007 I believe. We sailed right through screening because we knew exactly what to expect and prepared for it.
Now I know that if I become wheelchair bound and incontinent and have to travel via plane, I will have to pack extra diapers, and change into underwear prior to the checkpoint, hope I can hold it during the checkpoint, deal with the patdown, and change back into diapers after the checkpoint. Like a baby, I'd carry an extra change of clothing just in case, and consider putting down a waterproof pad on the wheelchair.
Yeah, it's uncomfortable and humiliating even if you do know what to expect. But people that go to the airport without checking first and assuming that it's all going to be puppies and roses are going to be utterly shocked.
Charter a small private plane out of a small-town airport if you can't stand dealing with the TSA. Use a train. Rent a limo. Ride the bus. There are other options - but they all have tradeoffs.
I understand people are upset about this, but unfortunately terrorists aren't above putting explosives or ceramic knives in a "full" adult diaper, or in the tubing of the wheelchair. Quite frankly I'm surprised we haven't seen someone surgically install explosives inside their abdomen, wait a month for everything to heal and traces of explosive to be washed away, and then blow up a plane that way.
We either accept these very invasive procedures, or we pull back on how much we check for things, and live with a hijacking every year or so.
Unfortunately for the ill and infirm, and for those with other special travel needs, 99% of the people who go through the checkpoints aren't bothered at all, and so they are willing to make others suffer so they can increase their personal level of security by an extra percent or two. Not a big increase, but since it comes at little personal cost they will deal with it, even if it means a great deal of discomfort for a minority of other passengers.
I don't know what the answer is, though. Traveling via train or bus sounds preferable for trips under 300 miles these days. We'll be traveling to California with a baby in September so I guess I'll find out how problematic it is at that point, but we won't need to deal with formula, and we'll certainly be checking out the TSA, airline, and airport websites prior to leaving to make sure our bases are covered.
We have traveled with a baby since 9/11 and it wasn't a problem then - that was 2006 or 2007 I believe. We sailed right through screening because we knew exactly what to expect and prepared for it.
Now I know that if I become wheelchair bound and incontinent and have to travel via plane, I will have to pack extra diapers, and change into underwear prior to the checkpoint, hope I can hold it during the checkpoint, deal with the patdown, and change back into diapers after the checkpoint. Like a baby, I'd carry an extra change of clothing just in case, and consider putting down a waterproof pad on the wheelchair.
Yeah, it's uncomfortable and humiliating even if you do know what to expect. But people that go to the airport without checking first and assuming that it's all going to be puppies and roses are going to be utterly shocked.
Charter a small private plane out of a small-town airport if you can't stand dealing with the TSA. Use a train. Rent a limo. Ride the bus. There are other options - but they all have tradeoffs.
People keep saying things like this, but we've seen, what?
I'm pretty sure they peaked with 9/11. Because from there they've upgraded to: shoes and underpants. And also at least one of those wasn't caught by security, even though his own father had warned the US that he was likely a terrorist.
I dislike this whole attitude of "Well they could subdermally implant C4 turning their entire body INTO A BOMB!" They're not Bond villains, ffs.
I'm not saying all security is unreasonable, but I am saying holy shit this was unreasonable.
I have ants in my house. They have lairs outside, but come inside for the yummy food we leave lying about, despite our cleaning skills.
I've gone through and closed off all the holes that are practical and obvious.
I've gone through an closed off the holes that are not obvious, which I discovered by following them walk around.
I've added new seals to openings I have to keep available for my own use.
There are still places that I cannot seal simply because it's impractical for me to do so.
Guess where the ants now come through? Despite the added work they have to exert to exploit these holes, they go ahead and use them because it's all I've left for them.
This is similar to what we're seeing with the TSA.
We closed off the obvious holes. We closed off holes we found through use (shoes). We close off the holes which we suspect might be used (wheelchairs, diapers).
If we leave some of the holes open due to practicality - let's say people with adult diapers do not require no-diaper pat downs or xray searches - then guess where we're going to see the next big security breach?
It's a balance, though, and you obviously fall on the side of "This is too unreasonable for the risk it poses" side. I'm not sure that I disagree with you, but I don't think I agree with you either.
The funny thing is that the TSA can't win. They tighten down searches, and they get bad press. They loosen up searches, something slips through, and they get bad press.
I've gone through and closed off all the holes that are practical and obvious.
I've gone through an closed off the holes that are not obvious, which I discovered by following them walk around.
I've added new seals to openings I have to keep available for my own use.
There are still places that I cannot seal simply because it's impractical for me to do so.
Guess where the ants now come through? Despite the added work they have to exert to exploit these holes, they go ahead and use them because it's all I've left for them.
This is similar to what we're seeing with the TSA.
We closed off the obvious holes. We closed off holes we found through use (shoes). We close off the holes which we suspect might be used (wheelchairs, diapers).
If we leave some of the holes open due to practicality - let's say people with adult diapers do not require no-diaper pat downs or xray searches - then guess where we're going to see the next big security breach?
It's a balance, though, and you obviously fall on the side of "This is too unreasonable for the risk it poses" side. I'm not sure that I disagree with you, but I don't think I agree with you either.
The funny thing is that the TSA can't win. They tighten down searches, and they get bad press. They loosen up searches, something slips through, and they get bad press.
C
Chibibar
stienman - I like the ant analogy, but you have to remember something. No matter what you do, if a group of people are determine enough (in this case ants) they WILL penetrate your defenses regardless with exception of totally bubble yourself (i.e. bubble your home with a single point of entry or something sci-fi ish)
Now. I remember when we talk about TSA in the U.S. vs anyone else in the world, there are better method of doing things. If you train your people and observe with better equipment (like England got a new scanner than is less invasive and less radioactive and CHEAPER than TSA stuff, but the U.S. shot that one down) then you can monitor who is coming and going.
like that ants - open a pathway and monitor it. If you see ants come in, then kill it with fire!
Now. I remember when we talk about TSA in the U.S. vs anyone else in the world, there are better method of doing things. If you train your people and observe with better equipment (like England got a new scanner than is less invasive and less radioactive and CHEAPER than TSA stuff, but the U.S. shot that one down) then you can monitor who is coming and going.
like that ants - open a pathway and monitor it. If you see ants come in, then kill it with fire!
It sounds like you've given a lot of thought to the problem. What is your plan?
Hire El Al to set up the screening procedures, and keep a few of their people on as advisors with hire and fire power to fix things when we inevitably fuck it all up.
GasBandit
Staff member
The TSA, despite draconian, invasive policies carried out with a completely robotic lack of empathy, has yet to catch a single terrorist. The rank and file Americans also hate the TSA.
But if they don't, they get accused of profiling. So we still continue to de-pampers great grandma and confiscate congressional medals of honor (cause they're sharp metallic objects) because otherwise it won't be politically correct to stop/search/detain anyone at all.
What needs to happen, is we need to get people in charge who aren't afraid to say, "yes, we profile. It's not all we do, but it's part of what we do, because to do otherwise is insane."
I agree.
But if they don't, they get accused of profiling. So we still continue to de-pampers great grandma and confiscate congressional medals of honor (cause they're sharp metallic objects) because otherwise it won't be politically correct to stop/search/detain anyone at all.
What needs to happen, is we need to get people in charge who aren't afraid to say, "yes, we profile. It's not all we do, but it's part of what we do, because to do otherwise is insane."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al#Security
3 hours prior to flight? Interviewing each passenger? Do they process as many passengers as the big US airports, and pay their people as little as they do here?
Seems like it's more time consuming, expensive, and just as invasive - but not physically invasive.
If you refuse to answer about the reason of your flight, do they let you fly anyway?
Every time it comes down to cost with you. You want to plug every hole, but you don't want to pay for it.
You want foolproof? FINE. You want nuts? C'mon, let's get NUTS!
No luggage. No carryons. No shoes or underwear. Passengers will strip naked in individual cubicles and be strapped into their seats, then sedated. Once all passengers for a flight are thus prepared, the seats will be collected into a single unit that will be loaded onto the plane. Passengers will only be revived once they reach their assigned destination and not one moment before. Appropriate garments will be provided upon awakening. For a reasonable (large) fee, a pre-packed wardrobe will be available upon request.
The only people remaining conscious during flight will be the flight crew and a skeleton staff responsible for keeping passengers in stasis. In the event of an emergency, oh well. Such is the cost of keeping even the remotest of terror attempts out of the skies. Sacrifices must be made in this time of war.
In a capitalist economy, not necessarily me. I don't fly enough to care.
Generalized for the american public, sure. 9/11 scared people.
How exactly do you go about reconciling this?
I'm guessing that's not going to work either.
Sadly, I don't think your plans are good enough to be implemented.
I don't have any better ideas, though.
The main problem is that the majority of people that fly are not inconvenienced by the existing procedures, it doesn't take hours to get through security, and it doesn't raise the cost of the flights by $100 per passenger.
Your plans add inconvenience, time, and cost, without increasing security for the majority - while making it so the minority are not more inconvenienced than the majority.
So, I guess your plans are good for those with an overriding sense of fairness, but unfortunately capitalism doesn't favor fairness.
The skies are too crowded already. If the cost of security were tacked on to the cost of a ticket, the terrorists too cheap to fly lose an avenue of attack.
If it prices others out of the market, so be it. Once again, sacrifices have to be made in a time of war. (
Fewer passengers mean fewer flights, meaning less crowded skies and airports. Not to mention the savings in unneeded fuel, and less stress on overtaxed employees.
A win/win as I see it.
If it prices others out of the market, so be it. Once again, sacrifices have to be made in a time of war. (
Fewer passengers mean fewer flights, meaning less crowded skies and airports. Not to mention the savings in unneeded fuel, and less stress on overtaxed employees.
A win/win as I see it.
North_Ranger
Staff member
Don't tell me. Tell the politicians who have shoved that phrase down our collective throats the past ten years.
When Steve Jobs stands in front of the WWDC and proclaims the next iPad is canceled in favor of ordinance production, then I'll believe we're at war.
Apple has enough weapons to win the war before they ever run out of ammo... no matter how much the US throws at them...
What makes you think the iPad isn't ordinance?
I wonder why so many people think today's most effective wars are still fought with bullets. We may not officially declare a war, but we are certainly actively engaging in multiple, large scale, ongoing economic and information wars right now.
C
Chibibar
Shhh..... That is what the Chinese are doing right now.
Dave
Staff member
But that's not war, that's competition...
C
Chibibar
I am not surprise. That is what you get when you don't make your own stuff.
Geez about the chips. I read yesterday that Home Depot could face fines for basically selling powertools to the government because they were foreign made.
http://my.placerherald.com/detail/182035.html
http://my.placerherald.com/detail/182035.html
- Status