posted
Some may think Alex Jones is a bit radical, but I like him. Here is a you-tube video regarding the new naked body scanners and "enhanced pat-downs" that will be, most likely, a feature of most airports:
posted
I don't think the idea of security is to inconvinience the traveling public. What will be the outcry of why weren't we protected when the terrorists retarget their missions. Love to see the commercials for the new Amtrak no security no screening no hassals. As far as the pilots they where upset when they began checking their luggage. You do have the option of a pat-down, when I go through security I don't worry about myself I worry about the other person.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tanner, TSA is not about security; the TSA is all about a show for Americans. If they were serious about security, they would profile for the security risks, similar to Israel.
It is all a huge scam on the taxpayers of our Nation.
I'm Amtraking to Phoenix next month, instead of flying SW Air.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
But having gone through security on El Al for flights to and from Tel Aviv, I doubt very much that its techniques, while effective for a small national airline, would work for TSA.
Psychological profiling is extremely labor-intensive. There often is a background investigation when you book your ticket, and at the airport you might be "interviewed" in private in a cubicle for anywhere from three to ten minutes.
This kind of security requires a large number of dedicated, motivated, educated, highly intelligent agents with considerable psychological training and savvy. Doubt if TSA could afford those. Or even find them.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
This story is no longer confined to the fringe media; it obviously is now mainstream. If some group of protesters decides to take an en masse "opt out" action (a sit down strike of sorts), security screening could be severely disrupted - especially if such is to occur during an upcoming peak travel period.
Amtrak could well benefit from persons deciding "too much hassle'. The additional ridership will largely be within the Corridors as the average person traveling say Chicago-LA and return is not going to consider five days of round trip travel time. They will "suck it up; knowing that "while no fun, in five hours (each way) over and done". I doubt if there will be much impact on long journeys; maybe some favorable impact on shorter journeys aboard LD's such as Topeka-Chicago, but "all the way', no way.
As for myself, I don't fly enough (two round trips; KORD-KHPN; KORD-KRIC, during 2010) to be concerned about the "CT Scan' now needed to board a flight. As far as visually having to "peel 'em off' you do it when you go to the Doctor, don't you?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't wish to see protestors disrupt the screening process, either. I think, however, the TSA has gone beyond the tolerence point for airline travellers.
The palpable taboo against profiling, at the airport, is something I don't understand. With due respect for Henry Kisor's post, I think that profiling of passsengers from middle east or other terrorist producing countries could be made to work. Scanning and enhanced pat-downs of 80 yr old grandmas from Minnesota or 4 year old kids doesn't make much sense.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: As far as visually having to "peel 'em off' you do it when you go to the Doctor, don't you?
Right, Gil, and you used to have to submit to "short arm inspections" in the military once upon a time. Are those coming back soon to an airport near you?
The missus and I don't fly much, but when we do she is an automatic "opt-out" because of her pacemaker. I plan to be a sympathy "opt-out" should the occasion ever arise.
-------------------- Ocala Mike Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
El Al must take it seriously otherwise everything they have would be blown out of the sky. Note, they have never had a successful hijacking.
I will find out the reality over Thanksgiving, as much as I would like to do the trip on the ground, I don't have the time.
Flying I don't mind, but dealing with the security theatre is another thing. I have had a plate in my leg for over 25 years, but until the last few it did not set off the airport metal detectors, now it does. My wife has metal in her knees and back, so we KNOW that we will always get the full treatment every time we go through.
This would seem to be where application of a couple of functional brain cells should take place. Does anybody really think that a 60 plus couple, both professionals, college grads, both of which have in the past had security clearances could possibly be any form of threat?
As Gil says, I may have to peel off my clothes for a doctor, but I see no reason to do so otherwise.
Where I really lose it is hearing that children are being put through this nonsense, My grandchildren may be coming out, but I really don't want to see them getting unnecessary X-rays, and I absolutely do not want them being felt up by anybody anytime anywhere for any reason.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for myself, I don't fly enough (two round trips; KORD-KHPN; KORD-KRIC, during 2010) to be concerned about the "CT Scan' now needed to board a flight. As far as visually having to "peel 'em off' you do it when you go to the Doctor, don't you? [/QB]
You cannot be serious, Mr Norman...
Are you really trying to compare a doctor's need to examine you to a TSA federal bureaucrat's need???
That is a mind-numbing comparison.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Both have a professional "need to know" in order to perform their duties to the public or myself as the case may be. I for one accept that; evidently you do not.
I readily acknowledge that I am more concerned about having our society kept safe than I am about having to waive some implied "Fourth Amendment right', i.e. how is "unreasonable" defined? when I choose to use air travel.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There WAS one successful El Al hijacking, in 1968 when a 707 bound from Rome to Tel Aviv was diverted to Algiers. The same year terrorists killed several El Al personnel on the ground at Athens airport. That was the beginning of the airline's celebrated security philosophy.
El Al shrink-screens everybody, even Hasids. That sweet little old bubbe from Brooklyn could be a suicide bomber in disguise.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yukon11: I think, however, the TSA has gone beyond the tolerance point for airline travellers.
Richard, as I noted in my immediate response to Mr. Mike Smith, it's not simply about one's choice to use air transport, it is about protecting society as a whole.
Lest we forget, how many fatalities were there aboard aircraft on 9/11; how many were there on the ground in New York and at The Pentagon (and how many more would there have been at The Capitol had UA93 got there)?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed Mr.Norman. Lest we forget there are terrorists which are brewed,and fueled with extremism in our own United States.
Posts: 498 | From: New Hope, PA, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Norman, I completely disagree that pornographic scans and molesting children has anything to do with plane safety or protecting our society.
You want safety, start profiling the people that are known to want us dead. Leave grandma, nuns, and children alone. Cut out the ridiculous, asinine "random" selections and make selections that have a chance at stopping the terrorists from killing us. Did you know that muslims are exempt from this sort of screening if they are wearing their hijabs? They are.
This is not about security, it is about transforming as many US citizens into sheeple as possible.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Yes I am, Mr Smith
Both have a professional "need to know" in order to perform their duties to the public or myself as the case may be. I for one accept that; evidently you do not.
I readily acknowledge that I am more concerned about having our society kept safe than I am about having to waive some implied "Fourth Amendment right', i.e. how is "unreasonable" defined? when I choose to use air travel.
Your response is mind-numbing....
The TSA does not have a need to know if the crotch of a 6-year-old girl should be groped in a vane, absurd, and immoral attempt to determine if she is carrying a genital bomb. That is beyond stupid.
And just exactly where do you get the ridiculous assumption that our 4th amendment right against an unreasonable search is "implied"? It is clearly stated in plain English. And some federal bureaucrat fondling my junk is UNREASONABLE! (unless it is a good looking female)
If I do get to pick the female TSA agent that will grope me, then never mind...
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: If some group of protesters decides to take an en masse "opt out" action (a sit down strike of sorts), security screening could be severely disrupted - especially if such is to occur during an upcoming peak travel period.
quote:Originally posted by yukon11: I don't wish to see protestors disrupt the screening process, either.
Be careful what one wishes for; it just may come to pass:
posted
To me, it's obvious the enemy is attempting to switch tactics. Cargo is unsecured right now. We've seen attempts there. The passenger cabin is not the point of risk at the moment.
I have a nightmare scenario. I won't describe it, but it does not involve passengers.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they continue to do full body-scans, then EVERYBODY should get one (OK, leave alone children), or else the whole process is a useless waste of time. After all, how many terrorists who are indeed carrying a bomb beneath their clothes are going to agree to a full-body scan (or even a pat down)? The people that agree to the full body scan are NOT the terrorists.
My solution is.........TAKE THE TRAIN!!!!
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RRRICH: If they continue to do full body-scans, then EVERYBODY should get one (OK, leave alone children), or else the whole process is a useless waste of time. After all, how many terrorists who are indeed carrying a bomb beneath their clothes are going to agree to a full-body scan (or even a pat down)? The people that agree to the full body scan are NOT the terrorists.
My solution is.........TAKE THE TRAIN!!!!
***************************************** Right on, Mr. Rich!
I agree with Mr. Norman's first post, with this thread, with regard to enhanced ridership on Amtrak's corridors. I do think corridor ridership could go up if the currrent TSA screening methods continue.
In fact, I think many suggested regional routes could take advantage of the screening hassle at airpots. The one I would especially like to see developed is the RangerXpress, from Albuquerque to Denver to Casper.
With regard to Mr. Rich's comment on terrorists not agreeing to a body scan..yes, I wonder about that, also. A while back, a terrorist (I believe from Saudi Arabia) stuck a half-kilogram bomb up his rectum. He would, obviously, refuse the scan in favor of the pat-down. Such would not detect the bomb. What is the answer? Maybe a colonoscopy room at the airport?
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
SInce the Government runs the railroads and now that TSA screeners may unionize what better way to add union jobs would be to put TSA screeners at the Train Stations? Which I am sure will be instituted the month following a Madrid/London type incident.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When did the government start running the railroads? Last I looked, the rail network in North America consisted of about 200,000 privately owned route miles and a negligible amount of track owned by Amtrak and commuter authorities.
Posts: 614 | From: Merchantville, NJ. USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, when your riding the rails in a boxcar you won't have to go through a scanner not sure what will happen if they catch you before you reach your final destination.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Tanner, possibly had your statement been worded to the effect of "since all rail passenger service in the US, if not the world, is operated by one Government sponsored and tax supported agency or the other..." Mr. Resor would not have made his perfectly justified objection.
Even though I know what you meant, and I'm sure so did Mr. Resor, clarity is the order of the day as Passenger Train Revenues comprise not more than 2% of all Railrway Operating Revenues (1% Amtrak; 1% regional agencies). While the amount of contract payments and any other provisions between Amtrak and a Class I is proprietary, I once learned that annual payments made by Amtrak to the UP are about $120M. UP Total Railway Operating Revenues are about $16B or $16,000M - anyone care to do the math establishing just how big a "fish" is Amtrak in UP's "tank"?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see why rail travel is getting more and more attractive for those that might not have considered it; before the new invasive TSA procedures we're talking about here. On my last SAN-CHI round trip, I left my paid-for return flight in my SW Air account and had a delightful rail trip home on Number Three.
I saw that viral clip circulating now of the sweet little blonde 3 year old girl - reduced to a crying panic-stricken kid by the heavy-handed TSA screener- who grabs at and pulls at the kid. It's sickening to watch; I'm glad the father put it out there. I heard a pilot from PHX on a talk show this morning say even the flight crew gets the "full treatment" by TSA; why is this? These men and women could put the plane into the ground if they wanted to; so why do they need to be checked for explosive shoes, etc.? I think the air traveling public is close to some kind of breaking point, with these latest developments. Wow- imagine what the Thanksgiving rush is going to be like this year; hope you guys don't get stuck in that!
Maybe some of them (the flying public) will migrate to the trains- the common-sense civility of rail travel seems to be in the forefront now. I may never fly again, after I use up my $269 credit with SW Air, that is!
Posts: 588 | From: East San Diego County, CA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try taking Amtrak for 15 years straight without jumping on a plane: That's what I did and I'm glad I have the option to fly these days.
The only thing that concerns me about the enhanced security procedures is the fear of being separated from my valuables. As I gradually become a more experienced flyer, this fear becomes less and less.
The only thing that exhausts me about the procedure is the way in which we are expected to remove everything so quickly and then reassemble ourselves after we pass through security. Some airports seem to be more accommodating than others but, once again, as I become a more experienced flyer, I become better at surviving the ordeal.
On the whole I really, really like the idea of airport security and I feel very safe flying on airplanes. I spoke to a radiologist recently and he rattled off all sorts of statistics that seemed to imply that the radiation hazard was negligible.
Personally, I don't see why people are getting all upset by this enhanced security. Are they so hung up about their bodies or what?
-------------------- Please visit "Chucksville" at http://www.chucksville.com and sign my guestbook! Posts: 324 | From: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yukon -- I have always thought that an AMTRAK route connecting Albuquerque to Denver, then going up into Wyoming, was a good idea. I am happy to see the plans for the RangerXpress.
Why not extend the RangerXpress from Casper further north, say to Shelby, MT, where it could connect with the EB? (I know -- very very unlikely!!!)
Even though unlikely, it does make some sense though -- currently there are only 3 N-S AMTRAK "corridors" in the whole system, the west coast (California, OR, and WA), Chicago-New Orleans or San Antonio, and the east coast BOS to Florida. And it is a LONG LONG way between the west coast and the Chicago-NOL corridor. And yes, I realize that Los Angeles to Seattle or Chicago to New Orleans are not exactly "corridors," but I think most of you see my point. I also know that to get from Boston to Florida, you have to make a connection in New York or Washington.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Smith, my opinion on this matter sits somewhere between yours and Mr. Norman's. However, in the interest of common courtesy and civility, please refrain from terming Mr. Norman's (or any other member's) opinions as "mind-numbing," simply because they do not match your own. This is supposed to be a cordial forum.
Posts: 255 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chatter are you the new moderator? Or are you just belittling me because I found a response mind-numbing?
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good one, Henry! Not quite as catchy as Pants on the Ground, but it was funny.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
SW Air is about 1/2 the cost, if I want my 4th amendment rights violated/minimalized/denigrated/eroded.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am going SFO to PNS on Wednesday. If I have anything to say on the subject, it will be after that.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Smith, even if I do not agree with your "strict' interpretations of the Fourth Amendment, I wholly respect your right (First Amendment) to express those views. Lest we forget, along with a fair number of others here, I once took an oath and wore the uniform of our country to defend those rights - and to the moment I leave this planet will stand proud I answered the call to serve.
Now with that having been said, even if my reason to submit the video is contained at the previously referenced 1:06, we should note that much of the remainder shows that the "silent majority' begins to speak. While such may appear to those holding strong Fourth Amendment views as the "sheep being led..", it shows that the majority of travelers accept the more stringent screenings as doing what has to be done in order to stay safe.
From one who resides in the proximity of KORD (I once saw my house after taking off on 22L), I do not relish the thought of any potential for an "aluminum shower". As far as my personal travel goes, of my nine CY10 away from home overnight trips comprising 23 nights, two used air travel (two Amtrak; remainder auto). I can't be that concerned about any radiation exposure from the CT Scans - even two "real deals' a year will not be harmful.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an idea, Mr. Smith, put forth by Jeffery Goldberg, who writes for "The Atlantic":
"Think about it -- if you're a male, and you want to bollix-up the nonsensical airport security-industrial complex, one way to do so would be to wear a kilt. If nothing else, this will cause TSA employees to throw up their hands in disgust. If you want to go the extra extra mile, I suggest commando-style kilt-wearing. While it is probably illegal to fly without pants, I can't imagine that it's illegal to fly without underpants. If you are Scottish, or part Scottish, or know someone who is Scottish, or eat Scottish salmon, or enjoy Scotch, or have a vestigial affection for "Braveheart" despite Mel Gibson, you can plausibly claim some sort of multicultural diversity privilege -- the term "True Scotsman" refers to soldiers who honor their tradition and heritage by wearing kilts without drawers underneath."
posted
This looks like a good point for me to interject my thought: I don't think we guys should shy away from this new screening. In fact I think we ought to embrace it as an opportunity to strap on a "prosthetic device" to enhance the image. Let's leave 'em in awe!
Posts: 518 | From: Maynard, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
