Government Groping – Hetero vs Homo

[Jonathan]

It says here that "It is TSA's policy that passengers should be screened by an officer of the same gender in a professional, respectful manner."

If the government insists on "touching our junk," personally, I'd rather have a woman pat me down than some don't-ask-don't-tell government dude. Does anyone know if I have the right to request a woman, or, if I were to ask such a question at the airport, am I likely to be beaten with a night stick, tased, molested by government dudes, investigated and then fined?

J

[Reidy]

Only if you're in drag.

[Starbuckle]

I recently moved back closer to my family (same state). Just in time, I suppose. I'll take only Amtrak to visit the home town and, excepting dire emergency, never fly again (though a brother is on the other side of the country). I guess I'll switch from Amtrak to buses if they start groping passengers as a condition of getting on the train. If the buses fall into the obtrusive-security mesh, I might consider hitch-hiking.

When I moved so far away originally, I figured the distance was no big deal, air travel being reasonably cheap and convenient. That was three months before 9/11.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Starbuckle

[Rich Engle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZsyLT5Wl1Q

[Brant Gaede]

It's hard to believe, but it's been nearly 25 years since I've flown on a commercial airliner. I first flew in 1951; I wasn't even 7 1/2, the cut off age for kids flying alone, but I got to go anyway. I got on a Super-Constellation in Tucson and flew to Chicago then switched to a DC-3 for Columbus. I was served soup which spilt onto my lap. I took flying lessons in San Jose when I was 15, and 16 in Tucson. The most beautiful sight I've ever seen was flying into NYC in 1960 at night over a lower Manhattan ablaze with light.

--Brant

I don't intend to adapt to TSA crap by exposing myself to it

Edited November 18, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

I recently moved back closer to my family (same state). Just in time, I suppose. I'll take only Amtrak to visit the home town and, excepting dire emergency, never fly again (though a brother is on the other side of the country). I guess I'll switch from Amtrak to buses if they start groping passengers as a condition of getting on the train. If the buses fall into the obtrusive-security mesh, I might consider hitch-hiking.

When I moved so far away originally, I figured the distance was no big deal, air travel being reasonably cheap and convenient. That was three months before 9/11.

They're here!

"The same Transportation Security Administration that has caught a lot of grief over its job securing airports may now face its toughest crowd: New York City subway riders.

The TSA has offered 12 of its explosive-detection workers to assist the NYPD in bag searches.

While the searches themselves are controversial, New Yorkers we asked said they like the idea of getting free assistance.

With fewer people flying, there is less demand for airport security. And more demand for resources in a city that faces a reduction in its police force.

If you encounter a checkpoint carrying a big backpack or suitcase or even a stuffed tote bag you are more likely to be searched. You can refuse, but you'll have to leave the station. You face arrest if you try to sneak back in.

The TSA workers will be paired with members of the police department. Their job: To check baggage for traces of explosives."

AND...

http://truepatriotsn...4SenateCmty.pdf

Edited November 18, 2010 by Selene

[kiaer.ts]

You know who to blame for this.

[Jerry Biggers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZsyLT5Wl1Q

I really think that we should not be so paranoid , and (as clearly shown in Rich's TSA Training Film), just accept these new government rules as further evidence that the government is just there trying to help us get over our fear of real togetherness and intimacy.

[Selene]

This is our King George moment - I hope we do not waste a great opportunity!

Fuck the State

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

This is our King George moment - I hope we do not waste a great opportunity!

Fuck the State

Adam

The state is us, Adam. That is, it is those of us who bother to take action.

[Selene]

This is our King George moment - I hope we do not waste a great opportunity!

Fuck the State

Adam

The state is us, Adam. That is, it is those of us who bother to take action.

Interesting.

How so Ted?

[kiaer.ts]

This is our King George moment - I hope we do not waste a great opportunity!

Fuck the State

Adam

The state is us, Adam. That is, it is those of us who bother to take action.

Interesting.

How so Ted?

It is a republic. In any case, no state has any existence outside of the people who constitute it. A proper state is constituted by all competent citizens.

[DavidMcK]

I think we should not only whether we want a male or female to pat us down, but which one. I would opt for Eva Mendes.

[Selene]

This is our King George moment - I hope we do not waste a great opportunity!

Fuck the State

Adam

The state is us, Adam. That is, it is those of us who bother to take action.

Interesting.

How so Ted?

It is a republic. In any case, no state has any existence outside of the people who constitute it. A proper state is constituted by all competent citizens.

Understood.

I agree that it was constituted as a limited constitutional Republic, but do you believe it is de facto operating that way now?

Big difference between de jure and de facto as you know.

[kiaer.ts]

This is our King George moment - I hope we do not waste a great opportunity!

Fuck the State

Adam

The state is us, Adam. That is, it is those of us who bother to take action.

Interesting.

How so Ted?

It is a republic. In any case, no state has any existence outside of the people who constitute it. A proper state is constituted by all competent citizens.

Understood.

I agree that it was constituted as a limited constitutional Republic, but do you believe it is de facto operating that way now?

Big difference between de jure and de facto as you know.

We are still the state whether we exercise our responsibilities or not - we are just negligent. In fact, the left is fighting a civil war and the rest of us aren't fighting back.

[kiaer.ts]

Read this, Adam. It got me banned from RoR:

Payment in Kind

Government is a human institution. All human action comes at some finite but real cost. Even a minarchist government needs funding . There is a cost to maintain and supply a military, a court system, a police force, and the other necessities of state action, no matter how privatized those entities may be. And monetary funding is not the only requirement for the existence of a government. If no person is willing to fight for the military of a state or serve in the police force, there can be no government. Police and military and even judges and legislators are not altruists. They do not work selflessly, nor under self-sacrificial circumstances. The right to life you imagine you have is not a claim on theirs.

When designing a government it must serve the interests of the governed. But it must also serve the interests of those who govern — and in two senses. Those who govern are humans. They must not be expected to work for free, or at a loss, or counter to their own self interests. And they must have the tools necessary to their professional interest in protecting rights, which itself must be rational and attainable and not self-defeating.

If, for example, the police are to fight force, they must be allowed to use force. The military must be given clear goals and cannot be given impossible goals. They cannot be told to defeat an enemy without upsetting anyone. To ask people to serve in a voluntary military as ill-equipped pawns who will be deployed in a surge only to please one faction then be brought home whether or not their task is accomplished in order to please another faction is to ask them to be sacrificial objects to fickle whims. To ask a politician to leave successful private life and serve as a state governor only to face maliciously brought harassment lawsuits to be defended against at her own expense is to expect only power mad altruists to hold public-office.

Those who protect us from others who threaten us with force must get paid for their services. This was as true during the dimmest of the Dark Ages as it is now, and as it was before the pyramids were built. Amongst savage palaeolithic tribes the men went to war as needed and the women folk supported them. During the Middle Ages the peasants fed the lord and his horses and the lord, presumably, fought to protect the manor. Peasants and savages paid for their protection in kind. Now we pay for our protection in money, which is better for all concerned. But some still pay in kind and are in turn rewarded in kind with pensions and honor and scholarships and citizenship. And there was nothing wrong with the fact that once, according to their circumstances, all men paid in kind.

Our modern military is supported by the most sophisticated system of trade this world has ever seen. No foe can beat it and its backers in a fair fight. It is only when we fail to provide for its other proper professional interests, like a clear plan to follow, and a free hand to fight, that it falters in its mission. In the days when there were wars but there was no money, such self-sabotage was much more rare and the needs of war were known direct. Imagine, if you will, the fate of the peasant, who, when the Mongols were at the gate, said, "You cannot expect me to fight for the state, it would be altruism! You may be lord, but I am no slave!" Were he somehow to live, and were the barbarians repulsed, what do you think his fate would be next time he was caught outside the gate when the horde attacked? Would not his peers refuse to provide the aid he himself held back the day before? Would they not tell him this? "We cannot risk raising the gate. Good luck! And fend for yourself."

The modern state depends upon payment in money from its citizens for the protection that some men offer others. It also requires that those who serve with their labor do so with honor and integrity, which normally they do, at least those in uniform. But it also requires other things from all of us, whether we pay taxes or we serve in the armed forces or not. We each of us must testify honestly in court if called. We must pay attention to the issues at hand in an election, and the integrity of those for whom we vote to put in charge of the men with guns. And, in addition, we must also, so far as we are able and would not ourselves be put in harm's way, report crimes or otherwise act as reasonable first responders when the situation warrants.

This is the necessity of a free state. If we wish to benefit from the protection of the law, we must pay for it, in money or in kind. The need for us to report crimes and to take other reasonable actions is a necessary prerequisite of the police and others doing their jobs. We cannot expect the police to fight crimes we do not report. If you can look out the window when you hear a woman's screams, can you not call the police to (one hopes) prevent a murder? If a car crashes into a tree on your lawn, is it unreasonable for you to take the initiative to turn off the ignition key so that when the police and ambulance arrive they do not need to call for the fire brigade to extinguish an otherwise easily preventable blaze before they act?

If you opt not to act in such situations, perhaps you have not initiated force yourself. But have you not refused to pay in kind for the sort of protections you yourself would want? The state must not initiate force against you. Not even to punish you actively for your inaction. But if you refuse to pay your taxes, do others still have a responsibility to labor to protect you? Are they your slaves? If the legislature determines that in order to redress crime, one must, as a rule, report crimes when one sees them, not under threat of jail, but under threat of reciprocal withdrawal, is this not a reasonable expectation of payment in kind? Does it not warrant a warning that refusal to pay comes with termination of services?

Of course there are details. That is why we have wise judges and cautious legislatures and fifty state laboratories in which to work out, in the real world, how best to implement our principles. One of our principles is that the police are not our slaves. If refusal to report a crime is made grounds for the temporary withdrawal of police protection (in lieu of payment of a fine if you want that protection to remain interrupted) then does the person who refuses to act have grounds to complain if others refuse to aid him in return? Is the withdrawal of services unpaid-for the initiation of force? Of course the alleged conscientious objector's actions cannot be arbitrarily judged. The benefit of the doubt would have to go with the supposedly negligent party. But there are those who would shirk their responsibility to support the state that protects them. Some people undoubtedly do hold themselves apart from the law. And in respect for them as persons they should be treated as they wish, as outlaws.

[Selene]

Excellent Ted.

No wonder this is the only place I post, I can see I would not last too long on any of the other sites.

The reality of protective forces has always been a difficult issue, but it is resolvable. I know that George and others have done some excellent work in that area.

Thanks.

Adam

[Starbuckle]

Keer wrote: "Read this, Adam. It got me banned from RoR."

How did it get you banned from RoR? What reason were you given? Not that it seems implausible to me that an RoR moderator would be unreasonable.

[kiaer.ts]

Keer wrote: "Read this, Adam. It got me banned from RoR."

How did it get you banned from RoR? What reason were you given? Not that it seems implausible to me that an RoR moderator would be unreasonable.

Only Joe Rowlands can moderate an established user. He accused me of defending Christianity, not in any specific actual post, mind you, since I asked for a quote, but as a "feeling" he had about me. His literal words - a feeling.

[Starbuckle]

"Only Joe Rowlands can moderate an established user. He accused me of defending Christianity, not in any specific actual post, mind you, since I asked for a quote, but as a "feeling" he had about me. His literal words - a feeling."

Even if you had been a professed Christian, why would it be an expellable offense? No wonder it's so moribund over there.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On the groping and airport security issue, the most common sense thing I have seen so far was proposed by Glenn Beck.

Instead of investing piles of dollars in a technology that offends most everyone and does not work all that well (especially for plastic explosives from what I have read), why not go to the people who get it right and see what they do? (btw - Guess who had lots of stock in the company that made the body scanners until the recent public blow-up started? None other than George Soros.)

Beck interviewed Isaac Yeffet, former director of security for El Al Airlines of Israel and former member of the Israeli Secret Service. Yeffet gave an overview of what the USA could be doing that would work a lot better than the present TSA measures.

Basically, his idea is to keep highly-trained personnel of a military background (five at each checkpoint) looking at passengers and interviewing the ones who they find suspicious--but realizing that 99% or more of the passengers are normal travelers. He suggested putting veterans to work at this since they already come with a lot of the prerequisite training from their military service.

Funny how this would come out cheaper than the scanners and would work a hell of a lot better. I can't think of anyone more competent to emulate that El Al, given the widespread outright hostility to Israel that is present in the world.

The thing that bothers me most of all about the body scanners and the groping is that there will inevitably be another incident. The terrorists are not going to stop trying just because there is hi-tech equipment and groin searches at check-points. Since the public is protesting this stuff right now, once the incident occurs, Obama or whoever in power will pop up and say that the government was impeded from doing its job and use that as a pretext to increase government power.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Basically, his idea is to keep highly-trained personnel of a military background (five at each checkpoint) looking at passengers and interviewing the ones who they find suspicious--but realizing that 99% or more of the passengers are normal travelers. He suggested putting veterans to work at this since they already come with a lot of the prerequisite training from their military service.

Funny how this would come out cheaper than the scanners and would work a hell of a lot better.

It depends on the goal. Israel's methods would not "work a lot better" if the goal is to punish the American people for rejecting Obama, his agenda, and his party.

J

[Jonathan]

Keer wrote: "Read this, Adam. It got me banned from RoR."

How did it get you banned from RoR? What reason were you given? Not that it seems implausible to me that an RoR moderator would be unreasonable.

Only Joe Rowlands can moderate an established user. He accused me of defending Christianity, not in any specific actual post, mind you, since I asked for a quote, but as a "feeling" he had about me. His literal words - a feeling.

Rowlands is a lot like many other Objectivist leader-wannabes in that he doesn't handle disagreement very well, especially effective disagreement. Being shown to be wrong (or worse, bone-headedly wrong) is very upsetting to people who want to be seen as brilliant and as leaders. Rowlands, Pigero, Hsieh, Peikoff, etc., are all cut from the same cloth.

J

Edited November 19, 2010 by Jonathan

[Selene]

11/19/2010

(Stupid) TSA Story of the Day

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 1:47 pm [Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Whatever one thinks of the TSA, it’s really hard to defend this first hand account at Red State just on a basic principle of intelligence. Some soldiers were returning to America from Afghanistan. They had to stop over in Ireland and deplane. The author, a soldier himself, explains a key detail:

It’s probably important to mention that

we were ALL carrying weapons

. Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol. Oh, and our gunners had M-240B machine guns. Of course, the weapons weren’t loaded. And we had been cleared of all ammo well before we even got to customs at Baghram, then AGAIN at customs.

For reference purposes, this is what a M-240B looks like, according to wikipedia:

So they go to get back on the plane, and complete stupidity breaks out.

So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

Gosh those government guys are soooo smart, let’s have them run healthcare!

[Selene]

TSA Recruiting Poster

November 19, 2010 By Jamie Line up and sign up!

Time to gear up the TSA recruiting drive: get out the recruiting posters!

[Click image to enlarge; click again to super-size it]

Directive: To be posted immediately in all bus stations, bath houses, and men’s rooms…

We are so screwed…

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 no warrants shall issue, 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.

–4th Amendment to the US Constitution

ALSO @ DBKP:

* TSA: Child’s First Cavity Search

* TSA: Hey Babe, Spread ‘Em–Then Check Out My New Badge

* Barney Frank Volunteers to Help TSA

* New Guidelines from Janet Napolitano

* TSA Invasive Procedures: Virtual Strip Searches for Congress, Napolitano

* The False TSA Choice: Scanner Strip Search, Get Groped or Security

* Virtual Strip Search Scanners: TSA Porn

* Angry Over Airport Full Body Scans? On the Horizon, Red Flag Tests

* Hope N Change: Don’t Just Scan There, Do Something

* TSA: Virtual Strip Searches, Group Gropes Provide Non-Security