Unutterably Silly Airport security decisions?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by wodin

That, my friend, is what makes the modern world go 'round. There is ALWAYS risk associated with everything. The question is; what amount of risk is acceptable; and if it's not what mitigation is needed to bring it to an acceptable level.

The problem arises when the people determining what’s acceptable are either irrational, or paranoid. Or worse, have a different agenda.

Engineers and lawyers.

[bjones6416]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

They give you a longer pat down if you wear an adult diaper.

(says the man that just got off of a plane yesterday...)

[Gwen Morse]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

why be embarassed? there is nothing going on that everyone else is not going through.



like that!

all y'all are actually giving the bad guys a win in their column by seeing everyone up in arms. we're all going through the same thing. this should be viewed as working together towards a common goal. keep your head high, lace up your boots and march on. just remember that we all have the same equipment on the scanner screen, and the ones that are different mean harm.

seriously, y'all need to chill

I realize this is supposed to be a light and frivolous thread, but I quite literally did keep my head high, lace up my boots, and march on. I was enlisted for one term in the US military. So, I really want to respond to this.

The very first words in the Oath of Enlistment I swore were that I would swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So, yes, I will keep my head high, lace up my boots (I still have two pairs of jump boots and they still fit nicely two decades later), and march on ... while indicating my displeasure at unconstitutional acts that have become more and more egregious over the past decade.

To put things back into a lighter tone, perhaps the next time I have to fly I'll show up in fatigue pants and a plain brown tee shirt, both altered to tear away like stripper clothes . Just to provide "easy inspection access".

Of course, that would mean having to change my answer to the gettin' nekkid one .

[Barcey]

That's OK. "Gettin' nekkid" is never the wrong answer.

Of course that's not what my mom said that time at the dinner party.

I was only 6 though. Well 4,5, and 6 but I was a slow learner.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Gwen Morse

I realize this is supposed to be a light and frivolous thread, but I quite literally did keep my head high, lace up my boots, and march on. I was enlisted for one term in the US military. So, I really want to respond to this.

The very first words in the Oath of Enlistment I swore were that I would swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So, yes, I will keep my head high, lace up my boots (I still have two pairs of jump boots and they still fit nicely two decades later), and march on ... while indicating my displeasure at unconstitutional acts that have become more and more egregious over the past decade.

To put things back into a lighter tone, perhaps the next time I have to fly I'll show up in fatigue pants and a plain brown tee shirt, both altered to tear away like stripper clothes . Just to provide "easy inspection access".

Of course, that would mean having to change my answer to the gettin' nekkid one .

Duty, Honor, Country! sing it sistuh!

[durkinrobinson]

I like it! Thanks Dave.

[Russell Brooks]

I don't like it but if this is what it takes to keep me safe, then I'll tolerate it for now.

[desertblues]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

The terrorists have won. We will be taking off our shoes until the end of time.

And no underwear.

[dsvick]

And now, back to our regularly scheduled frivolity:

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

just remember that we all have the same equipment on the scanner screen, and the ones that are different mean harm.

seriously, y'all need to chill

I beg to differ - you women folk sure are different - but different in a good way!!

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by dsvick

And now, back to our regularly scheduled frivolity:



I beg to differ - you women folk sure are different - but different in a good way!!

ok, it comes in two flavors. those folks looking at the screens probably can't even see the person.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

ok, it comes in two flavors. those folks looking at the screens probably can't even see the person.

You really believe there are only two flavors?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Barcey

So what decision are you going to make about flying?

I'm one of the "have to fly for business" group. But I have some control over how often I fly, & I have reduced it to the bare (so to speak) minimum.

I agree that we need some degree of airport security because one nut job, Islamic or otherwise, can take out a lot of people. But the nekkid scans & groping does not seem to me to be worth the cost, much less the indignity, in terms of actually catching the bad guys.

TSA is organized around the principle that its employees are too stupid to make judgements. Therefore it does not allow them to distinguish between a pocketknife and a butter knife. It will permit 3 oz. of any liquid, however toxic, so long as it is in a 3 oz. container, but a 6 oz. tube of toothpaste which is half full is verboten. These scanners are simply the extension of the Our Employees Are Dumb principle. They will not improve security, but they will make sure that the employees don't need to think.

It's the same with electronics on the airplane. Assuming that somehow, a cellphone can crash the plane (is there an App for that?) why in the world should I have to turn off my Sony on takeoff & landing? It's because airlines treat their employees and customers as dopes who can't tell the difference between a phone and an ebook.

I do not plan to fly when I retire & have the time to drive, take the train, or take a ship. I guess I might have to fly for some funerals.

Frankly, I think that the airlines should be responsible for airplane security, not the government. TSA amounts to a subsidy for airplane travel. Why should the taxpayers pay for that?

[happy_terd]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I'm one of the "have to fly for business" group. But I have some control over how often I fly, & I have reduced it to the bare (so to speak) minimum.

I agree that we need some degree of airport security because one nut job, Islamic or otherwise, can take out a lot of people. But the nekkid scans & groping does not seem to me to be worth the cost, much less the indignity, in terms of actually catching the bad guys.

TSA is organized around the principle that its employees are too stupid to make judgements. Therefore it does not allow them to distinguish between a pocketknife and a butter knife. It will permit 3 oz. of any liquid, however toxic, so long as it is in a 3 oz. container, but a 6 oz. tube of toothpaste which is half full is verboten. These scanners are simply the extension of the Our Employees Are Dumb principle. They will not improve security, but they will make sure that the employees don't need to think.

It's the same with electronics on the airplane. Assuming that somehow, a cellphone can crash the plane (is there an App for that?) why in the world should I have to turn off my Sony on takeoff & landing? It's because airlines treat their employees and customers as dopes who can't tell the difference between a phone and an ebook.

I do not plan to fly when I retire & have the time to drive, take the train, or take a ship. I guess I might have to fly for some funerals.

Frankly, I think that the airlines should be responsible for airplane security, not the government. TSA amounts to a subsidy for airplane travel. Why should the taxpayers pay for that?

You pretty much just summed the entire thing up. Good job.

[happy_terd]

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

You really believe there are only two flavors?

ok, 2.3. seriously. we all have pretty much the same parts here.

move on! nothing new to see!