We all know that Muslim women will not be subjected to sexual assault by the perverts of the TSA; Political Correctness will protect Muslim Women and their virtue from TSA agents groping their most intimate feminine organs. The Obama/Napolitano wisdom or lack of wisdom is supposed to keep us safe, even if Muslim women are infinitely more likely to be carrying explosives than American women. When your president has a great sympathy for Muslims and especially the modesty of potential female Muslim terrorists, why should we expect less? After all, he has an image to must maintain in the Muslim world.
Unfortunately, many American women have been raped in the past and will surely feel that the pernicious sexual assault by leering pervert TSA agents is more than enough to make them hysterical. A response that may cause them to be shot or tasered by TSA agents who are anxious to assert their authority and power. A hysterical reaction is considered more than enough to be shot by TSA Agents, their power is not to be questioned and your rights against unlawful search and sexual assault are no longer valid, unless of course, you are a Muslim woman. In simple terms resisting the perverts of TSA and their legalized sexual assault is sufficient to be tasered or shot, they now have the right to grope any woman beneath her clothing, excluding Muslims of course, or resort to violence to insure submissiveness.
In the US, 31% of rape victims develop Post Traumatic Shock Syndrome during their lifetime and more than 10% still have PTSD today. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 13% of all American women have been raped. That means that 3.8 million women have PTSD today. They estimate that 683,000 women are raped yearly, approximately 211,000 will develop PTSD annually. Is it not reasonable that some of these women might become hysterical with the TSA perverts sticking their hands down women’s underwear and expecting them to stand perfectly still while following instructions?
Let us not forget how easy it is to get shot by the TSA, if you have a panic attack, excluding Muslims of course. Muslim women have been advised by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relation that because of religious reasons, they have the right to only allow pat downs on the neck and head; presumably, if they were planning on blowing up an airplane, they would either be sporting and hide the explosives on their head or neck: if they are devious and no one would ever accuse a Muslim terrorist of being devious, they would hide the explosives in a no touch area of their body under the bed sheet.
El Al, Israel’s airline has a flawess record ad a real security system with professionals, not political hack and pimps that play Obama’s, Yes Sir, Yes Sir, Three bags full game. Below is a portion of an interview with Isaac Yeffet, retired head of security for El Al; he describes a well disciplined and trained security force that is not from the dregs of society that just happened to be in the right place at the right time to get a job.
CNN: What needs to be done to improve the system?
Yeffet: It’s mandatory that every passenger — I don’t care his religion or whatever he is — every passenger has to be interviewed by security people who are qualified and well-trained, and are being tested all year long. I trained my guys and educated them, that every flight, for them, is the first flight. That every passenger is the first passenger. The fact that you had [safe flights] yesterday and last month means nothing. We are looking for the one who is coming to blow up our aircraft. If you do not look at each passenger, something is wrong with your system.
CNN: What is El Al’s approach to airline security? How does it differ from what’s being done in this country?
Yeffett: We must look at the qualifications of the candidate for security jobs. He must be educated. He must speak two languages. He must be trained for a long time, in classrooms. He must receive on-the-job training with a supervisor for weeks to make sure that the guy understands how to approach a passenger, how to convince him to cooperate with him, because the passenger is taking the flight and we are on the ground. The passengers have to understand that the security is doing it for their benefit.
We are constantly in touch with the Israeli intelligence to find out if there are any suspicious passengers among hundreds of passengers coming to take the flight — by getting the list of passengers for each flight and comparing it with the suspicious list that we have. If one of the passengers is on the list, then we are waiting for him, he will not surprise us.
During the year, we did thousands of tests of our security guys around the world. It cost money, but once you save lives, it’s worth all the money that the government gave us to have the right security system.
Isaac is retired, yet he might be available to replace our bimbo in charge of Homeland Security; at least, if we hired Isaac,
we wouldn’t be counting on the stupidity and incompetence of Muslim terrorists for our security.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
So what if it gets a little rough, get over it.
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_story.aspx?storyid=140233&catid=14
Before boarding a flight in Grand Rapids, a woman says the search at the security checkpoint was violent, unnecessary and extremely upsetting.
“When I got on the plane all I wanted to do was sob,” says traveler Ella Swift.
Swift was one of an increasing number of passengers Transportation Security Administration officers are thoroughly searching by hand. They call it an “enhanced pat-down.”
Swift says they told her she was singled out because she was wearing a skirt. She says the search earlier this month was very rough and left her in tears.
“The female officer ran her hand up the inside of my leg to my groin and she did it so hard and so rough she lifted me off my heels,” she says. “I think I yelped. I was in pain for about an hour afterwards. It just felt excessive and unnecessary.”
After reviewing the incident, a TSA spokesman says officers involved in the Grand Rapids search acted “appropriately and respectfully.”
The TSA says people in what they call “bulky clothing” may be singled out for the enhanced pat-down. Some passengers may also be selected for the search at random. The TSA says they have installed full body scanners and added the pat-downs to improve aviation security.
@ Aye, We do have folks that post here with the scent of racism implied in subtle fashion. We know who they are. You, quite frankly ain’t one of em. 😉
We seem to be tolerant of racism, stupidity, those that are reading and critical thought process challenged and some that are visiting village idiots that snipe here and offer nothing of value.
Tolerance is a Virtue, to a Point. Mine gets tested here at times.
Ah, sweet diversity! We have a Hugely incompetent, Largely economically illiterate leftist Regime running the show here until 01 Jan, 2011. Then the momentum swings S L O W L Y back to some degree of Fiscal Responsibility, I hope. In 2012we have the opportunity to scale back irresponsible spending, cut back on programs that Ate Our Lunch and produced nothing, reduce the size of that Monster in Gummint that consumes like a pack of wolves and craps on our collective lawns. We can eliminate the Over Regulation by holding Agencies responsible to their Constitutional Limits, 10th Amendment compliant, and get the Nation off the edge of the Abyss.
Tolerance is Good. To a Point.
So what if it is considered sexual assault, she has artificial knees, what the Hell do you expect. Grope her and fondle her sexual parts, we will teach them to submit to the omnipotent Obama, one way or another. Control and submission, that is what we want here, oh there is a pretty little preteen, I get that one!
Yes American women, go ahead and fly, but forget about your right to privacy. If the Obama and his crew wants to sexually assault you, they are going to do it or you will get a $10,000 fine if you refuse his sexual fondling. Get over it, we’re all Socialists now! Bring your daughters to the airport, the guys like the young ones, yea baby!
(KMOV) — More Americans are growing angrier, over what the Transportation Security Administration, admits are more intrusive security put downs at airports.
One woman is comparing her experience at Lambert Airport to a sexual assault.
Business traveler, Penny Moroney, was flying home from St. Louis to Chicago. Like all other airline passengers, she had to go through security first. When the metal in her artificial knees set off the detectors, she had to undergo more screening. When Moroney asked if she could go through a body scanner, she was told none were available.
A pat down was the only alternative.
Moroney explains “Her gloved hands touched my breasts…went between them. Then she went into the top of my slacks, inserted her hands between my underwear and my skin… then put her hands up on outside of slacks, and patted my genitals.”
“I was shaking and crying when I left that room” Moroney says. “Under any other circumstance, if a person touched me like that without my permission, it would be considered criminal sexual assault.”
Moroney complained to the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, supervisor and then complained on the ACLU’s website.
The national office is now monitoring what it calls a “flood of complaints” from across the country.
Edwin Yohnka of ACLU Illinois says there are no laws and no regulations that govern scanners and pat downs.
Moroney said she wishes there were full body scanners everywhere so that she could have avoided a pat down.
The TSA’s response was that their officers’ first priority is safety when asked if putting hands down the front of someone’s pants is excessive.
The TSA said they don’t comment on individual screening procedures at checkpoints.
Anyone who sets off the metal detectors are required to go through a physical pat down, but the TSA says they use a less aggressive touch for children under 12.
The government is currently adding more body scanners at airports across the country.
http://www.kmov.com/news/mobile/Woman-says-her-Lambert-security-screening-was-sexual-assault–109114934.html
bbartlog — When a sentence starts with the phrase “Wikipedia projects” I start to bleed from the eyes. No, son, RIGHT NOW the Black percentage in the US is about 10 to 12%. Wikipedia’s projections only make sense, given current trends, if White people have even fewer kids, or intermarriage results in White people having mixed race kids and those kids self-identifying as mized race, as opposed to White. As such, Blacks would increase percentage wise (I doubt this will happen for the reasons I mentioned) because White numbers are decreasing faster than Black numbers.
ThomNJ — I have not seen any data indicating that Black abortion rates have increased in the last 10 years, even as birth rates have dropped significantly. I stick with my projection that the Black population will be about 11% or so; it used to be close to 13%. Mainly because college educated Black women have having very few children, way fewer than college educated White women. An analogy — baseball. Used to be that there were many Black American baseball players. Now, on my local MLB team, the only “Black” player is biracial and from Washington state; I don’t know if he considers himself Black or not, so don’t know how he would register on the census form. So you see fewer Black players not only because of less Black interest in the sport (analogous to birthrates) but also increased opportunity for Latinos when compared to 20 or 30 years ago (analogous to increased birth rates).
Old Trooper — Your commentary is completely ignorant concerning WHO INJECTED RACE into this string. It was Skookum who did that, with his complaint about having so many Black people working for the TSA, creating what he/she called a “Black race dominated security force.” John Cooper and John ryan both chimed in with their beefs about random Black people they have encountered. Someone commented about Black TSA screeners being “anti-white” and “not showing respect.” Someone even mentioned Black TSA employees “raping white women”; it became an anti-Black free for all! I thought it was the 1930s and the Scottsboro Boys all over again! Then I was thinking that maybe the word “uppity” might be on the tips of tongues, especially when considering the other claims of “reverse racism” obviously being at play because “too many” Black people supposedly had those TSA jobs.
In short, Skookum and Johns Cooper and ryan were pissed off about race, not me. I simply responded to Skookum’s ignorant blast and others opined, backing him up with their claims of “mistreatment’, implying a new “Jim Crow” at work. Wow . . . .
To sum: Skookum’s post and some of the other comments here show that a LOT of people here are hung up on race, specifically having issues with Black people. That is you guys’ issue, so don’t blame me when you cons’ own words hang you out to dry and expose your “race issues.”
Mata and Curt —
In my prior post AGAINST racial profiling, I pointed out the stupidity of using race in decision making, i.e., profiling by race/national origin, looking for what
ManAnn Coulter referred to as “foreign born Arab males.” I see no one has had a rational comeback on how one would profile to catch Islamists bent on attacking the US.Curt wrote about profiling
But El Al’s profiling methods would NEVER WORK in the US for the reasons I mentioned, plus a few others. For example, the ONLY people who have attacked El Al have been Arab Muslims from the Middle East; an Israeli airline might be OK looking just at that cohort. This is just not true with respect to the United States, hence Richard Reid (biracial Brit), the undie bomber (African), Jose Padilla (Puerto Rican US citizen), the blond chick in Pennsylvania (White US citizen), Walker Lindh (White US citizen), or the Al Queda and Al Shebab spokepersons (White US citizens) have all waged war against the US. Continental Airlines runs close to 200 flights per day out of my very diverse mid-sized city. How do you profile such a diverse group of targets and still get the passengers out on time? You can’t. That is why profiling based on race, national origin, etc., is USELESS in this particular war on terror, the same way it is useless in the war on drugs. Screening of anyone between 14 and 50 or so makes more sense given the demographics of out enemy.
anticsrocks —
I did not post anything about the companies getting contracts from TSA under the stimulus plan. But since Silicon Valley and the Rt. 128 corridor around Boston are two of the biggest concentrations of high tech companies in the world, nonetheless the US, and since practically ALL of the high tech corridors in the US are Dem dominated, you should not be surprised at all if TSA spending went to Dem represented companies. That is who will get high tech spending, just as farm subsidies tend to go more to Red represented districts. Besides . . . apparently Red districts got more Obama stimulus dollars per capita than Blue districts, so why the whining?
oh the irony….
…. then in the next breath sez
What was that about assiging vices to an entire group again, Tom? 😯
@Tom:
Nah….accusing me of “tolerating” racism on this site is not in any way equivalent of saying that I am a racist….
No, not at all…
Amusing.
Outrageous too. Especially considering that you cannot point out, even when challenged, one single example of anything I’ve ever posted here which supports your contention.
You on the other hand, eagerly bring race into a conversation where it wasn’t even an issue…yet, you accuse others of racism.
How’s that work exactly?
Of course, when accusations of racism are made from from your side sans one iota or pixel of proof, you buy in fully. Hook. Line. Sinker. Desperately clinging to your narrative even when it’s pointed out to you that the story is simply not plausible.
Woods and trees indeed.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/17/tsa-screenings-worry-sexual-assault-survivors.html
So victims of sexual assault and rape do find the sexual fondling to be intimidating: who would have thought such a benign procedure would be so revolting to some people.
Passengers have found a variety of reasons to object to the Transportation Safety Administration’s new screening policies, a combination of advanced-imaging technology scans and pat-down searches, which went into effect Oct. 29. Some see the full-body scans as a radiation risk. Some say the measures violate civil liberties, And for some, like John Tyner, a San Diego software engineer, the new screening measures represented something more immediately terrifying: the specter of sexual menace. Tyner is being investigated for an $11,000 fine after he walked away from a screening he considered “sexual assault.”
The TSA, on the other hand, argues that these screenings are not only safe, they’re necessary. In an era of plastics-based explosives, metal detectors aren’t sufficient, says Nick Kimball, a spokesperson for the TSA, and the new body scanners are the best available option. The body scan creates a digital snapshot of passengers underneath their clothing, allowing screeners to see any hidden contraband. Passengers who decline the scan are subject to a pat-down to achieve that same goal. It’s a pat-down that many travelers say may be more thorough, but is also more invasive and humiliating than previous security frisks. “It was a horrifying experience. I was touched in my private parts, in my genital area, without consent and without warning,” says Erin Chase, an Ohio woman who flies several times a month. (TSA says that all airline officials should tell passengers what’s going to happen prior to a pat-down.)
Yes airlines and Obama should tell you that all American women will now be sexually molested if you dare to fly. That’s just the way it is with totalitarian Socialism. Give it up, this is the age of Obama.
For women and men who have already been sexually assaulted, the new screening rules—or just the threat of these rules—present a very real danger. They can be triggering events, setting off a posttraumatic-stress reaction. “I started crying. It was so intimate, so horrible. I feel like I was being raped,” an anonymous rape survivor recounted on a Minnesota blog. Melissa Gibbs, a spokeswoman for We Won’t Fly, a group protesting the new regulations, says that a rape survivor she spoke to had a panic attack as an agent began touching her leg.
“After a sexual assault, it seems that many survivors have difficulty having their bodies touched by other people,” says Shannon Lambert, founder of the Pandora Project, a nonprofit organization that provides support and information to survivors of rape and sexual abuse. This fear of contact even extends to partners and, often, medical professionals. “A lot of survivors do not want to be in positions where they’re vulnerable. They put up defenses so that they can be in control of their body. In cases like this, it seems like some of that control is going away.”
If that sense of control is violated, it can lead to more than hurt feelings. There’s a physical reaction associated with a triggering incident, and the response can vary from person to person. “It could lead to a person shutting down and becoming noncommunicative, it could result in a person becoming emotionally upset, it could trigger flashbacks, not just the thoughts and feelings they experienced, but perhaps other sensory experiences,” says Jennifer Marsh, director of the National Sexual Assault Hotline for the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN).
Defenders of the pat-downs argue that they’re not all that different from what was used before (though frequent fliers such as Chase would disagree). How and when they’re executed has also changed. Previously, pat-downs were reserved for those who failed a metal detector or who were randomly selected for a search. But now, a pat-down is used both when passengers opt out of the scan and when scanner technicians can’t capture a good image. With 385 scanners in use in 68 airports, some abuse survivors worry that the chance of incurring a pat-down has now increased. And that threat of being retraumatized is enough to keep some of those people from flying. “There’s no way that I would go through that as a survivor,” says blogger Melissa McEwan. Her posts on the invasive pat-downs have generated numerous comments from other survivors who have either experienced panic attacks as a result of the new screening process or are avoiding flying so that adverse reactions won’t be triggered. Gibbs, herself a survivor, is planning a national boycott of the airline industry, along with We Won’t Fly, on Nov. 23.
The pat-down itself is not the only thing that could cause a reaction, say counselors who work with people who have experienced sexual assault. “We’ve had a number of survivors who have had their pictures taken and put online,” as part of a sexual assault, says Lambert. “So for them, even though [the TSA photo is] deleted, even if the person is in the other room, the idea that the photo’s being taken can be difficult to handle.” Lambert also notes that for adults who were assaulted as children, watching their children go through either invasive photographs or excessive pat-downs can be traumatic as well. (Kimball says that the machines automatically delete photos before moving on to the next passenger, and that the screeners, who work in a separate room, never see the passenger, while the agents working with the passenger never see the pictures.)
Both Lambert and Marsh says that through better communication and training with TSA agents, as well as relaxation exercises and therapy survivors’ reactions to the pat-downs can be mitigated. Still, the pressure of airport travel can make the trauma of the search even worse. “This kind of situation has the potential to be really psychologically retraumatizing. Everything’s happening so fast, there’s a lot of pressure, a lot of people expecting you to, don’t take too long, don’t demand special privileges, don’t ask questions. You have to catch your plane,” says therapist Wendy Maltz, author of The Sexual Healing Journey: A Guide for Survivors of Sexual Abuse. “You don’t have the opportunity to employ techniques that could enhance a sense of calm.”
Passengers have the right to have an agent of the same gender perform the pat-down, but McEwan notes that any kind of unwanted touching can trigger an event. Moreover, men who are sexually assaulted are often the victims of other men—“but saying, ‘Hey, I want a woman to do this’ could lead to a whole other set of problems,” Maltz says. Survivors and women’s advocates also worry about the potential for bad actors, poor communication (as in Chase’s case), and abuse of power will make an already bad procedure worse.
While the ACLU and some politicians are working to challenge the new policy, the TSA maintains that fears and speculation surrounding these changes are much worse than the reality.
“Our officers are trained to work with individual travelers with families to ensure a respectful screening process for everyone while providing the best possible security for all travelers,” says Kimball, who notes that the procedures were determined by considering the overall safety of the passenger, and based on the best intelligence.
That’s cold comfort for many men and women, who, thanks to the new security regulations, are feeling much less safe than before.
As always, Krauthammer says it better than I can… from today’s Washington Post: “This time you have gone too far, Big Bro’. The sleeping giant awakes. Take my shoes, remove my belt, waste my time and try my patience. But don’t touch my junk. “
Tom wrote —
Not much more I can add to that. Think a lot of the folks here do not speak out and, indeed, close ranks behind comments like Skookum’s because . . . well, they support their own side, right or wrong. That is problematic because, by supporting Skookum with his race war obsession, you are supporting the concept of a race war. That is not a likely possibility in this country, but the idea that a supposed conservative web site would support such notions is rather chilling.
Mata, if you highlight the sentence differently, it’s clear I’m speculating upon another’s possible viewpoint, not expressing my own:
Maybe where I see ambiguity you see that flabby lack of decisiveness that Conservatives hate so much,… snip…
Sloppy, I suppose, on my part. Good catch. It’s too bad you choose to focus on trifles and not weigh in on the real subject of my post. Of course your post #23 seems to be, diplomatically, saying much the same thing. Being so opaque probably isn’t going to make a dent around here though.
This is a must read, praised be Obama
Are you sure you want to fly with your wives and daughters?
This American woman was molested in a manner that American forces cannot use against members of the Taliban. Do you really want to fly during the Age of Obama? I know we are supposed to accept his Totalitarian Socialism, but this is a bit much. Oh well, it is only your rights as a American citizen that you are being asked to forfeit. Let them fondle you, it is for your own good
Our Little Chatterboxes
November 17, 2010
I have an incident to share that occurred late Friday afternoon, November 12, 2010, around 5:15 in the Dayton International Airport.
I realize the publishing this publically on the internet puts me into a delicate situation, given that I am a high profile blogger and author. This is a difficult incident to share, but it needs to be said…Because I will not be a silent victim.
I will share the facts of the incident in as a matter of fact manner as I can.
I checked into my flight and had a boarding pass printed that included “plus infant.” My baby and I were flying from Dayton, OH, to San Antonio, TX, so I could run in the San Antonio Half Marathon. I was taking my baby along because he is still breastfeeding for part of the day.
I entered the security line, removed the special formula that I had with me for the baby, as well as my quart size baggie with my other liquids. I went through the x-ray machine and metal detector, carrying the baby, with no incident.
Because I was traveling with baby formula, I knew to expect that they would test it with the paper circles for explosives. The TSA agent took all of my belongings over to the table in the center of the explosive screening tables. She asked me, “Are you aware of the NEW policies for carrying liquids through security that were instated 4 years ago?” (capitalized to show the emphasis that she placed on that word.)
I replied, “Yes, I fly with him every several weeks.”
She scanned the formula, then turned to me and said, “Remove your shoes and stand on that black mat for a patdown.”
I said, “OK, what do I do with the baby?”
“You cannot be holding him.” (I am traveling alone.)
So I placed him into his stroller. She instructed me, “Spread your feet apart and hold your arms out to the side.” I obliged.
She patted my left arm, my right arm, my upper back and my lower back. She then said, “I need to reach in and feel along the inside of your waistband.”
She felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area.
She did not tell me that she was going to touch my buttocks, or reach forward to my vagina area.
She then moved in front of my and touched the top and underneath portions of both of my breasts.
She did not tell me that she was going to touch my breasts.
She then felt around my waist. She then moved to the bottoms of my legs.
She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia.
She did not tell me that she was going to touch my vagina area or my labia.
She then told me that I could put my shoes on and I asked if I could pick up the baby, she replied Yes.
She then moved back to my belongings to finish scanning them with the paper discs for explosives. When she finished she said I was free to go.
I stood there holding my baby in shock. I did not move for almost a minute.
I stood there, an American citizen, a mom traveling with a baby with special needs formula, sexually assaulted by a government official. I began shaking and felt completely violated, abused and assaulted by the TSA agent. I shook for several hours, and woke up the next day shaking.
Here is why I was sexually assaulted. She never told me the new body search policy. She never told me that she was going to touch my private parts. She never told me when or where she was going to touch me. She did not inform me that a private screening was available. She did not inform me of my rights that were a part of these new enhanced patdown procedures.
When I booked my ticket, I was given no information that the TSA had changed their wand and unintrusive patdown procedures to “enhanced” patdown procedures that involved the touching of all parts of your body, including breasts and vagina on women and testicles and penis on men. I was not informed by any signs on the front side of security about the new procedures. I had not seen any media coverage about the issue, so I had no idea that this was a new government sanctioned policy.
Another important piece in this story, the Dayton airport does not have the new body scanners. I was not given any other search options. It was enhanced patdown, or nothing. (And I would have opted for the body scanner, if I were going to be subject to a sexual assault.)
I asked to speak to a supervisor immediately. I had a very unpleasant conversation with him that lasted 20 minutes. I moved to the back of the security area, made a few phone calls, including to my lawyer. He did some quick research, and learned that I had indeed been sexually assaulted because she did not follow the SOP (standard operating procedure) for the new search.
During our first conversation, the TSA acting manager of the shift told me that the TSA agent who sexually assaulted me was supposed to inform me about the new search procedure and tell me when and where she was going to touch me. He also apologized on behalf of himself and on behalf of the agent who sexually assaulted me. I was not allowed to speak to the agent who sexually assaulted me, nor did the acting manager provide me with her name. (I did not have the presence of mind to look at her nameplate, as I was in shock.)
I also spoke with the Dayton police, the Dayton airport police, and left a message for the TSA manager for the Dayton airport. I intend to request the TSA to arrange for counseling services to be provided to me, so I can deal with the aftermath of the sexual assault that took place, caused by the specific touching actions and failure to inform me of the policies by the TSA agent.
I am speaking out against the TSA and share my sexual assault case to ensure that this does not happen to anyone else, anywhere.
I will not be a silent victim of sexual assault by a TSA agent. Total Sexual Assault.
I am calling for immediate change to this new enhanced body patdown search.
I am calling for the TSA agent who sexually assaulted me to be fired.
I am calling for you, a fellow American, to stand up against these new enhanced full body patdown search procedures of the TSA.
Please note: I do plan on flying back to Ohio on Monday, because it will take me too long to drive home from Texas. I do not however intend to fly again until this search policy of sexual molestation is revoked by the TSA.
I will leave you with this thought: “It is acceptable and encouraged that a TSA government official can do something to an American citizen that US military personnel cannot do to a member of the Taliban.”
Man, oh man…the irony thick and rich on this thread, eh?
Hey…Mr. ParaLegal2 now that your big law firm gig has run into a bridge abutment…perhaps you can get busy trying to gather the evidence necessary to collect on Breitbart’s reward offer.
Aye, I wrote “Thank you for deciding blatant racism against the President is irrelevant.” I’m not an English professor, but that seems closer to stating you tolerate racism than saying you are a racist. Later on in the same thread I write: “I don’t believe you are a racist.”. Pretty unambiguous. Would you like me to have it notarized and delivered to you? Your diversion is a dead topic.
Now are you going address my question?
Now I must go to work, but by the time I am done with work, I am sure there will be many more cases of sexual assault for me to post.
I am going to post every damn one of them and I will look for more Black Panther material, you know the non-racial race haters and wanna be Cracker Baby killers.
I hope you don’t think I am racist for posting such racist material. 😉
Yep…that’s what you wrote.
The point that I made to you then, as well as now, was that you, sir, are the one who injected race into the conversation when it wasn’t even an issue.
You only did that because you were unable to actually discuss the issue of the thread which was, if you recall, taxation policy.
How quickly, and conveniently, you forget.
Alright, I’ll play your game for a minute or two…let’s parse your question:
…overwhelmingly black TSA… [which is, by the way, NOT what Skookum said]
What is the racial balance of the TSA employees who are performing the screening?
…groping innocent white people…
Are all of those white people being groped guilty of something?
…at Obama’s behest…
Is Obie’s unaware or in disagreement?
Which part has no “zero factual basis?”
Aye also wrote —
I stand by my position — John Lewis said he was called “n*gger” by teabaggers. No one who was there has denied that it happened, or that that crowd was not rowdy enough to have acted that way. Indeed, none of the GOPer cons who were on Capitol Hill have claimed it did not or could not have happened, or said that John Lewis is untrustworthy. Finally, none of the media reporting the story (like Faux News) ever suggested that the claim was suspicious.
Instead, you and Breitbart are relying on the concept that if something is not clearly caught on video, then it did not happen. Curious that, seeing as Breitbart in the Shirley Sherrod incident HAD SOMETHING ON TAPE then edited it to make it seem that she was saying the 180 degree opposite of what she REALLY said! But he is the one setting your standard of proof? OK . . . .
As I said, rather than deal with the racist statements on the right, you either say nothing (in the case of Skookum), or change the subject (you bringing up my prior post about John Lewis), or you attack the messenger (i.e., John Lewis). OK, fine. But as long as the GOPers fail to address this cancer on your side, you will continue to suffer from it.
Aye —
You said that Skookum never referred to an “overwhelmingly black TSA”; technically true. What he said was “Has anyone else noticed that [TSA] is a Black race dominated security force?”
Hmm . . . “overwhelmingly black” versus “Black race dominated” . . . are you REALLY quibbling over the difference?
Isn’t the author supposed to substantiate such claims? To my knowledge, there is none. I don’t believe there is evidence that proves that “this is a Black race dominated security force”. I don’t understand what race has to do with the TSA screening issue and thus the introduction of it into the discussion seems questionable at best. Seems like a race-based scare tactic to me. Would you care to weigh in (he asked again)?
@Tom:
If you’d like to attempt disprove Skookum’s claim regarding the racial balance of TSA screeners, the innocence of the white people being groped, and Obie’s approval feel free.
You’re the guy who has taken issue with the things that have been laid out.
Build a case which supports your disagreement.
If you can.
@Tom, using the phrase, “that conservatives hate so much” is nothing but lumping people together in some group… exactly what you say you deplore. No getting around that one. Conservatives are not a one size fits all piece of clothing.
I said in my initial comment that I really don’t have much to say on this subject. Perhaps if I was going thru the body scanner voluntarily, and they pulled me out for a pat down, I’d have a different view of what they are doing. But I don’t blame the TSA agents. They are merely following their orders from above. Are there some bad apples in the bunch? But of course… as long as there are humans inhabiting the planet, we’re always going to have those, and you deal with them one on one as they enter your life’s circle.
As I said, I don’t like the body scanners, but I’m not that modest nor paranoid to make an issue of it. I’m more offended by being on camera, 24/7/365 with security monitors everywhere. Not to mention humans on their own, with their phone cameras, who may be catching photos of you when you don’t know it. This is just one more annoyance that comes with a world where the scum of the planet is succeeding in imprisoning normal folk with intrusive regulations and policies.
As far as the omnipotent Billy Bob, emphatically stating that profiling is impossible… I disagree. Yes, there are the exceptions to the rule, but they are just that… exceptions, and not the norm. If there is screening/body scanners, they may catch the exceptions.
For the random pat downs… by all means, please profile. It’s not rocket science to pinpoint on someone via attitudes, uncomfortable body language, suspicious flying (cash tickets, no luggage, no carry ons, etc). ID is shown before you get to the screening section, and even that should be taken into consideration…. country of origin, and whether or not they are a hot bed of terrorist activity and training. Is it 100% fool proof? Of course not. But there’s a grand amount of logic involved as well. When you’re searching for the needle in the haystack, you don’t rifle thru the pumpkin patch.
Am I saying if you are from Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen etc, that you should be scrutinized more than others? Absolutely. And I say so without apology to the PC sensitive.
@B-Rob:
‘bbartlog — When a sentence starts with the phrase “Wikipedia projects” I start to bleed from the eyes. No, son, RIGHT NOW the Black percentage in the US is about 10 to 12%.’
1) – I had no disagreement with your comments regarding the current percentage, although since you bring it up again I feel I should mention that there is no reason to give such a wide range; the US Census Bureau allows us to say that it’s 12%. Maybe you are making allowance for different methods of classification.
2) – I agree that Wikipedia is not truly authoritative, but it’s a good starting point. If someone wants to disagree with it I would expect an appeal to more solid authority (academic papers, primary sources, or maybe some personal information that indicates a lot of first-hand familiarity with the subject). All you’ve done is give your personal opinion buttressed by some hand-waving arguments, which doesn’t amount to much given that Wikipedia bases its numbers on a report from the Census Bureau.
‘Wikipedia’s projections only make sense, given current trends’
I don’t know exactly what assumptions the census guys made in putting together their projection, as I don’t have time to read the whole report. However, current trends (last fifty years or so) are an increasing percentage of minority populations, including blacks. Historically, the black percentage was about 13% following the Civil War, then dipped to just below 10% around 1930 thanks to a large influx of white immigrants, and then rose again. It’s been growing just a little less than half a percent per decade since 1960. I would guess that your supposed ‘current trends’ amount to wishful thinking on your part about how people are behaving (or about to behave).
what you’re asking makes no sense. My contention is there is no evidence for his claims. How does one document something that doesn’t exist? Wouldn’t it be much easier for Skookum to just provide the facts he’s working with so that we can all see and evaluate? Are you stating that his claims, sans any proof, stand until someone can shoot them down? I’m shooting them down simply by requesting proof that doesn’t exist.
Mata —
I would not consider myself “omnipotent’; I just try to think things through beyond the base level of talking points.
And I did not say “profiling is impossible”; I said it is counterproductive, over inclusive and under inclusive. Which is why it does not work in drug running and why it would not work here, either.
I said that El Al’s procedures would never work here because we have too many flights and too many people flying, not to mention too many people flying at the last minute. What works for a very small relatively non-diverse country of 7 million people with a state airline will not work for a very large diverse country of 311 million with private sector airlines. This concept should not be controversial.
I ask you — how would YOU go about profiling for Islamist terrorists? I laid out the demographics of those convicted or being tried for terrorism against the US: they are Black, White, Latino, Arab, Pakistani, and biracial. Male and female alike; native citizens, naturalized citizens and foreign born. As wealthy as a banker’s son, some solidly middle class, and one as poor as a former gang banger would be.
Other than an age span from early 20s (undie bomber) to late 40s (David Headley), I know no commonalities . . . except religion, which you cannot, by definition, profile for. So how would YOU profile in such a way as to catch a 39 year old White female from Pennsylvania, a Puerto Rican male in his 30s from Chicago, and a 20ish year old former Southern Baptist White guy from Alabama.
Technology or a pat down may be an intrusive way to deal with the “bomb on your body” problem, but I see no other way of doing it, do you? If so, please explain.
Now that you’ve chosen the path of rhetorical games, instead of backing or challenging Skookum, here are the things I think I know about you, Aye.
* You write for a website where 99% of the readers are going to agree with anything you write.
* When not basking in the glow of their positive reinforcement, you get your kicks going after the other 1%, knowing that your jeering broadsides will be cheered on by the sycophants regardless of merit.
* When asked to weigh in on something that might put you at odds with another writer, you play games and otherwise duck and run.
You’re a really brave guy.
Thanks for the back and forth. It’s been fun.
bbartlog —
I use a range of 10% to 12% because I suspect the percentages, per the 2010 census, will fall. I saw one state that the “Black” population was 12.9% in 2000; I see no possibility that it will be that high in 2010 for all the reasons I mentioned: falling birth rates among Black women; reclassification adding the “mixed race” category*; and rising numbers of Asians and Latinos, too. Unless there are considerable changes in miscegination rates, Black birth rates increase among college educated Black females, and Latino and Asian immigration slows, I just don’t see the “Black” population hitting 15% by 2050, if ever. Just look at California, Texas and Florida.
* Aside — a friend told me that her father, who is from Barbados and grew up in South America, classified himself as “Black” when he applied to med schools in the US in the 1950s. He could not get through the interview process of any White US med schools, so he went to med school in Germany (irony that the former Nazi state was more welcoming than the US . . . but I digress). His brother classified himself as “South American” and was admitted to White US med schools. Meaning, race is a social construct that is mutable based on the beliefs, thought process and experiences of the individual. It is why Obama considers himself Black while many other identically biracial people do not.
Biden: Airport screening pat-downs a ‘necessary policy’
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/130089-biden-pat-downs-a-necessary-policy
Ok then. Let ME ‘pat down’ Biden, Napolitano and Joe Pistole. My Way. Like we searched Taliban Fighters captured in the Stans. It includes a strip search, exam of every orifice, outside in the weather, any resistance, belch, flinch or fart gets my boot on the throat, clothing cut off with a K-Bar knife, all hair on the head subject to a shave, a cold water outdoor shower, delousing offered at no additional charge.
Just Security Measures and “Love Pats”, Geneva Convention Compliant of course. Nothing Discriminatory, just effective. Lets see how they like that business.
This is clearly an abuse of the Fear Factor. The toxic human scum that is Bin Laden can’t believe this luck.
After a couple of million miles in the air, I have given up on flying. The experience of airports has become personally invasive – removal of shoes, belts, very personal massaging, intimate imaging, 2 hrs. before flights, etc. It has become too cumbersome.
Profiling? Are you kidding? Why are the Laws of Probability so politically incorrect?
It’s too easy to say, “I’m OK with my personal space being invaded if it means the airplane is safe.” It’s also sad the a majority of people seem to have been convinced as to the acceptability of that percept. This is the lazy way out. We’re being lulled into loss of personal privacy, . . . talk about slippery slopes – this is at the bottom of that slope. It’s over.
We should expect and demand intensive training. The kind of training which border guards go through. Since this is a matter of security, each and every I-pat-you-down-because-it’s-my-job employee in all airports should receive comprehensive instruction on detecting suspicious individuals. Border guards deal with elements such as facial, and emotional factors, to assess instantly, the individual facing them at the border, (while the pat-me-downs simply assess the physical.) Add that to an automated network that assesses an individual’s identification, and evaluates the odds instantly.
Arguments such as, “well he’s a caucasian kid from LA who got converted, so he’ll be hard to detect,” don’t wash. He’d have to be a robot to get through a well interconnect communications network and screening system operated by well trained individuals. The technology exists. The problem is that government is too incompetent to implement is effectively, so we take the LAZY way out.
Sorry kids, but when I witness a grandmother getting some serious grief at a pat-me-down station, it is evident that all common sense has vacated the premises, and that slippery slope is now in the rear-view mirror.
@Tom:
Then, you should disprove Skookum’s contentions by citing sources.
If, as you state, Skookum’s claims have “zero factual basis” then the facts should be 100% on your side. You should cite them.
@Tom:
Wow…what a dumb ass you’ve turned out to be.
Did you follow the Ground Zero Mosque discussions here at FA any at all Tom?
Evidently not.
You don’t have the remotest idea what you’re talking about. Again.
As I’ve said to you before, you’re either woefully unprepared or excessively inebriated.
Now, cite some sources which support your position or go pound sand up your ass.
One or the other.
Doesn’t matter to me.
Oh good grief…. since the TSA workforce demographics seems so all fired important to some, then here it is… from the TSA site itself. Which means, Tom, that “evidence” of the demographics does indeed exist. You just didn’t bother to make an effort to rise to Aye’s challenge.
Now there’s something else you can all argue about. Does this prove Skookum’s claim that it has a disportionately high share of black Americans? A claim can be staked that 21.5% of black employees to 58.9% of caucasian is high if the nation’s black population is Billy Bob’s 10-12% assertation. You can equally argue that Native Americans, Latinos and Asians are under represented.
On the other hand, just going by pure numbers, 21.5% is hardly a predominate presence in any workforce, while 58.9% is. Are these employees scattered equally thru airports? Of course not. Atlanta is likely to have a higher presence of blacks than Oregon, while Oregon is likely to have a higher visibility of the small percentage of Native Americans. It’s the racial and nationality make up of the individual state.
Now, there is a TSA “affirmative action” policy in play I agree with, and that is they give military veterans priority. They are particularly well suited for a screeners job – hunting and ID’ing bad guys – with their training and experience, and I’m always one for giving a vet the first place in line.
According to a July 2009 report INRE the air marshal program, which also gives preference to veterans like the TSA, 37% of their new hires were veterans. It was at that point that Texas Dem, Rep. Al Green, stated the air marshall program lacked “the gender and racial diversity, particularly among Senior Executive Service positions”.
Personally, I don’t care. As a conservative, I have argued against having diversity workforces merely to reflect racial population numbers. People are people, Americans are Americans. You pick the best people for the job or benefit (i.e. college entry, grants, scholarships). And to argue about the racial make up of the TSA, or other industry workforces, is an approach too uncomfortably lib/prog in foundation for me to indulge in.
@Billy Bob, since I pulled your 3-4 comments out of the moderation filter, I will have to say that I’ve already answered your questions about profiling in some of my previous comments above. As I pointed out, your examples are the exception, not the norm.
You think profiling is counterproductive. I think it’s counterproductive not to profile. Nor do I believe it should be the *only* screening policy in place. However profiling… acceptable in crime solving… is thrown out the window when it comes to looking for terrorists. Why? Hypersensitive, PC attitudes. Crimes would never be solved with PC policy leading the charge, and serial killers would remain on the lam.
I’ll even hand you an apology for calling you “omnipotent”… that just came from your usual presentation here that you are the all-knowing last word on truth. But I will take the input from those like Curt, Old Trooper and others who have profiled for the bad guys as the course of their daily jobs over your naysaying any day.
@ Mata Harley, #77:
I’m inclined to think the same thing. Urban vs. rural demographics is another factor. Generally speaking, the population of black Americans is more concentrated in and around America’s large urban centers–the same places where big airports are located.
@B-Rob:
Of course you do. You gotta support your own side…right or wrong.
Even when a major left leaning media outlet like the NY Times completely disagrees with what you’re claiming:
Maybe we should follow Germany’s Pirate Party’s lead?
Jeff
I found a source
I can’t take all the credit though. Bravo to the author.
I actually did follow some of that and I found it fascinating. I thought it was Wordsmith leading the anti-Muslim-bashing charge, but if you were involved, then you too deserve recognition. You know, ever since that brouhaha, it seems like the Dr John’s and Skookum contingent have taken this place over.
So, Aye, now that Skookum’s statement, “this is a Black race dominated security force” has been verifiability eviscerated, where does that leave us? Are you prepared to register your approval or disapproval with his methods?
Time to rename the TSA to TSAE, Teh Stupidest Agency Evah!
As the Chalk Leader for my flight home from Afghanistan, I witnessed the following:
When we were on our way back from Afghanistan, we flew out of Baghram Air Field. We went through customs at BAF, full body scanners (no groping), had all of our bags searched, the whole nine yards.
Our first stop was Shannon, Ireland to refuel. After that, we had to stop at Indianapolis, Indiana to drop off about 100 folks from the Indiana National Guard. That’s where the stupid started.
First, everyone was forced to get off the plane–even though the plane wasn’t refueling again. All 330 people got off that plane, rather than let the 100 people from the ING get off. We were filed from the plane to a holding area. No vending machines, no means of escape. Only a male/female latrine.
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.
The TSA personnel at the airport seriously considered making us unload all of the baggage from the SECURE cargo hold to have it reinspected. Keep in mind, this cargo had been unpacked, inspected piece by piece by U.S. Customs officials, resealed and had bomb-sniffing dogs give it a one-hour run through. After two hours of sitting in this holding area, the TSA decided not to reinspect our Cargo–just to inspect us again: Soldiers on the way home from war, who had already been inspected, reinspected and kept in a SECURE holding area for 2 hours. Ok, whatever. So we lined up to go through security AGAIN.
This is probably another good time to remind you all that all of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols.
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]
This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.
Aqua, I think that is the funniest example of “stupid” I’ve ever seen. If there were a Ft. Hood shooter in the midst, one would have thunk he/she would have shown their cards long before this.
Shaking down our troops coming home…. OMG. Insanity has become the norm.
Let’s say that the politicians somehow force the TSA to block both scanning and pat downs. Then let’s say that someone blows up a plane. Who gets blamed?
Personally, my only issue is with radiation. The TSA says that the radiation dose is only equivalent to flying for three minutes at 30,000 feet. But that’s assuming that the machines are maintained properly. At LA’s “best” hospital (Cedars Sinai), their CT scans were exposing patients to 8 times the intended dose for 18 months before the error was caught.
What are the odds that something like this will happen in a national screening program involving millions of people in scores of airports?
I get freaked out by radiation. I’ve got a cancer phobia. I don’t even get dental xrays, unless absolutely necessary, and I make sure that the machines used are the latest, low dose digital machines and that they are calibrated regularly. I fly a lot. Personally, I’m going to opt for the pat downs, intrusive though they may be.
I’m for doing whatever needs to be done to minimize the possibility of being blown out of the sky.
P.S. In LA, Long Beach, Orange County, San Francisco, Denver, and JFK (airports which I’ve flown out of most recently), the TSA people seemed to be majority white.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Tom:
Ah…I was waiting for you to pick up Mata’s post and run with it.
The problem for you is that what she posted is for the TSA overall, not for screeners specifically which is the topic of discussion.
Where does that leave us you ask?
It seems we haven’t moved from where we were and, yes, your options remain the same.
Facts? Or sand?
@Tom, as I pointed out, the TSA stats neither confirm or deny anyone’s position.
21.5% is not a “predominate” presence, but when comparied to the nation’s population, it is a disproportionate amount of black Americans in the workforce.
Who’s right? Just depends on how you want to look at it.
Therefore your statement that Skookum’s observation “has been verifiability eviscerated” is entirely erroneous, and totally misrepresents my comment entirely. The truth lies in the subjective perspective the presenter takes. Not to mention, the particular airports he may have frequented.
Or, more succinctly put, you haven’t cleared yourself of the “pounding sand” punishment with my comment, guy… 😆
Apparently you didn’t read the months of debates INRE Cordoba House. While we authors were certainly split.. with Wordsmith, myself and Aye taking the brunt of the “former author’s” schoolyard bully taunts of “muzzie teamsters”, and Curt coming down somewhere in the middle but leaning with the three of us, the forum also had diverse, and more than occasionally heated, opinions. That’s what makes up this place… diverse opinions.
As I said, conservatives are not a one size fits all piece of spandex.
Funny that you didn’t call her out on it.
As I stated before, it’s not my job to disprove his facts. That’s why reputable publications and journals hire editorial staffs and fact checkers. The idea that the onus to fact check a post is on the reader is outrageous. I don’t really care anymore, Aye. Your coy silence speaks volumes and I know where you stand.
Aye, technically the discussion is not only about screeners, if we go back to the original roots of the discussion.
@Skookum #5 didn’t single out just screeners, but addressed TSA’s hiring practices (all jobs) in general. All of TSA is considered a national security workforce, even when they aren’t the screeners out in the gate security area.
This still leaves us with either a no one wins, or everyone wins angle.
And it’s still one dumb a$$, lib/prog discussion.
?? Exactly what aspect of TSA screening policy is political? Or is it the hiring part of it which you feel is political? I personally felt that some of the comments coming from Congress on this issue have had an entirely unnecessary political undertone. Wasn’t it Congress which initially mandated better screening to pick up future underwear bombers? So what is the TSA supposed to be doing? Seems to me that they are dam-ed if they do; dam-ed if they don’t.
I’m not sure whether or not I ought to be arguing something.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Sorry, Mata, but when someone writes “Black race dominated security force”, who is going to read the race in question is a mere 21.5%, and think that jives? He’s clearly talking about the racial makeup of the TSA, not each races representation relative to the general public’s demographic makeup, because he’s talking about the likelihood of which race you will find yourself face to face with in any given encounter. You are bending over backwards on this.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim… LOL… the absurd discussion is the workforce demographics. Only the affirmative action/politically correct types like to parse workforce demographics. That’s the conversation I’m shunning.
INRE the screening bit, pocketed your radiation concerns for future use. But then, I don’t fly as often as you to be so concerned.
No, Tom. I am not bending over backwards… least of all in front you you, dude! Never pick up a coin when standing in front of a liberal…. 😆
Your problem is you became fixated on parsing a single sentence Skookum made in comment #5, not his original post as you allege. Instead you come at me with some sort of vague hint alluding bias or unfairness in my points.
So let me bring you back to what Skookum said, in context, about TSA hiring.
Let me repeat that… Skookum was asking why the workforce was not representative of the nation’s population. When taken in that context, the 21.5% of blacks employed are over represented.
When taken as a percentage of the whole, they are not predominate.
ah ahem…. I rest my case. Sometimes, when you’re chasing your tail, you need to remember where your yapper is located in the process.
TOM, TAKE IT EASY, NOW, AYE CHIHUAHUA HIS NAME, AND MATA HARLEY HER NAME,
THEY BRING A LOT OF CLOUT AND KNOWLEDGE HERE TO THE GROUPS WHO HAPPEN TO APPRECIATE THE INPUT AND WISDOM, we always learn from them and SKOOKUM AND DR JOHN AND ALL OUR AUTHORS WHO ARE DOING A GOOD JOB HERE AT FA,
I CANNOT SAY THE SAME FOR YOU AND SOME OTHER LIKE YOU WHO ALWAYS COME HERE TO DISRUPT AND CHALLENGE SOME OF US YOU GO AROUND AND TAKE YOUR PICK ON MUCH HIGHER INTELLIGENCE THAN YOURS AND YOUR GROUP,
I still cant name any bright comment of yours, SO TONE DOWN WE ARE NOT DEAF, AND
WIPE YOUR FEETS WHEN THE DOOR OPEN AND WHATCH YOUR SENTENCE, AND WORDING.
BYE
Lewis Black did a great nanny state riff on The Daily Show. I particularly like the (R rated) segment on the TSA screening controversy, beginning at 1:58.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-16-2010/back-in-black—nanny-state
I’m impressed that a man could “notice” that the black representation in the TSA is 21.5%. That is an absolutely amazingly precise observation on his part, to notice a discrepancy that small. My interpretation was that he felt the % was much, much higher (thus the use of the word ‘dominated’), but apparently the truth is that, through his extensive travels, he has noticed a 6.5% disparity between African American employment in the TSA and population % and thought it prudent to share his concerns with the board. Forgive me for jumping to conclusions.
Tom, you’re getting desperate with your cryptic musings, guy. Skookum made an observation that, whether he knew it or not at the time, turns out to be viable in the way he presented it as a total percentage of the nation’s population. And in the airports he flew thru, it’s entirely possible they were very “dominate” in presence.
As I said, you can’t get out of the “pound sand” punishment, any more than you can declare definitive victory.
Do I, personally, attach any racism to TSA screeners and/or employees? Absolutely not. But I speak for myself, not others.
Do some, when granted the power to bully people into submission, abuse that power? Of course. That, however, is not a race based trait. And when that’s done, they should be confronted, and litigated into proper behavior if necessary.
Do we learn anything about screening, intents, abuse or effectiveness when assessing the TSA workforce? Nope. I’m just happier than a pig in poke that they try to hire veterans first. Who better to “screen” for the bad guys than them? The rest of the conversation is just horse manure to me.
Again:
It is patently AGAINST the law for TSA or any federal agency to search an individual without suspicion or PROBABLE CAUSE. To search and seize the property of innocent individuals, without their consent or probable cause is a CRIME punishable by state and federal law. TSA and the Department of Homeland Security are violators of federal law, committing crimes in public — TSA is NOT exempt from the law.
The Fourth Amendment: Probable Cause
In General
1.
Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge, and of which she has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to permit a person of reasonable caution to believe that:
1.
Arrests
An offense has been committed, and the person to be arrested committed it.
2.
Searches
The item to be searched for is present at a certain place at a certain time and is either:
1.
The fruit of a crime;
2.
The instrumentality of a crime;
3.
Evidence of a crime; or
4.
Contraband.
2.
Purely objective standard
Whether probable cause exists is purely an objective standard. The subjective intent or ulterior motives of the police are irrelevant. The only determination that is made is the objective determination of whether probable cause existed (Whren v. United States).
*
Example: If the police have probable cause to pull a car over, they may do so, even if the true motive for stopping the vehicle is because the occupants are African-American.
3.
Staleness
Probable cause can be very time- and place-specific and can go stale. Factors for determining staleness include:
*
Character of criminality
*
Type of property to be searched or seized
*
Opportunities to remove/destroy/dispose of property in relation to time
Determining Probable Cause
For information to rise to the level of probable cause it must be trustworthy and ample.
1.
Trustworthiness (quality)
The two types of information that can be offered are:
1.
Direct
Information that the police officer secured by personal knowledge (such as witnessing himself). Direct information is deemed sufficiently trustworthy so long as it is not “bald and unilluminating.” In other words, conclusory statements without any supportive facts are given no consideration by the magistrate.
2.
Hearsay (e.g., from informants)
Information received from a third party needs to satisfy the two-pronged test of:
1.
Veracity
This is satisfied by providing the magistrate enough information about the third party to satisfy her that the informant is credible and reliable. Veracity is established by either:
*
Batting average: the prior track record of the informant’s information
*
Corroboration: the police are able to verify various aspects of the informant’s tips
2.
Basis of knowledge
This is satisfied if the informant received her information firsthand. If the source of the information is not stated, basis of knowledge is satisfied by providing either:
*
Self-verifying detail: information sufficiently detailed to lead the magistrate to believe that the informant has firsthand knowledge
*
Corroboration: the police are able to verify various aspects of the informant’s tips
3.
Totality of the circumstances test
The modern test for trustworthiness eliminates the rigid two-prong test and now requires the magistrate to conduct a balanced assessment of the relative weights of all the various indicia of reliability attending an informant’s tip. The weakness of one prong may be compensated for by the strength of the other prong (Illinois v. Gates).
2.
Quantity
Whether the information provided is sufficient so that the facts and circumstances would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that the person or place possesses seizable material for a search or that the person to be arrested committed an arrestible offense
3.
“Bald and unilluminating” assertions get no weight
Statements presented by the affiant or informant that are wholly conclusory cannot ever satisfy the quality or quantity requirements. They are entitled to no weight whatsoever by the magistrate (Spinelli v. U.S.).
1.
Affiant: the police officer giving the sworn statement (by an affidavit)
2.
Informant: the person who supplied the information
From: http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/legal/criminalprocedure/section6.php
—————————————————————————————————-
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
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.
TSA IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE, DAILY COMMITTING GROSS ILLEGAL OFFENSES AGAINST THE AMERICAN PUBLIC! TSA NEEDS TO BE STOPPED. MORE LAWSUITS NEED TO BE FILED IMMEDIATELY AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IS OBLIGED TO RULE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC — VOIDING AND STOPPING THE TSA AND ANY FURTHER SEARCHES AND ILLEGAL SEIZURE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.
I really forgot to address this one, Tom…
First of all, no one “takes over” Flopping Aces. Curt runs a very open forum with diverse opinions. Skookum recently became an author. Others, like DrJohn, Vince, Gary and sundry others, have “reader’s posts”.
If you look up in the top of FA artwork, you will see a link that says “submit reader post”. This means that you, like many, can submit posts to Curt for publication. That you have one… or 150…. “reader” posts submitted, does not mean you “take over” Flopping Aces. You do not become an author and you do not become representative of this community at large.
I’m an author, by the gracious invitation by Curt. I, however… nor any of the other authors… “take over” Flopping Aces. I do not speak for Curt, other authors, or the readers at large.
Depending the day you visit, and the more recent posts (since most of us have actual lives and jobs, and don’t blog daily), you may get one flavor over another in the thrust of post commentary. However Curt has always been open on opinions. His one request from readers posts are that they are from a conservative perspective since this is a conservative blog… however diverse it’s community. You will notice that one of our favorite left leaning types, Larry W.. aka “openid.aol.com/runnswim”… has even had his own post because it was not a political thrust, but a factual one.
Therefore, one more time, I will remind you of your own abhorrence of categorizing groups… while you continue to categorize this blog as “a group”. Please take note of our diversity. We have authors. We have reader posts. And we have commenters. But most of all, we have spirited discussions.
I missed that comment also Mata and you did a great job refuting his assertion. While this blog is conservative in nature I welcome differing opinions from one side of the conservative spectrum to the other (minus one’s that are waaaaay out there). As Larry wrote (and I appreciate the compliments Larry) the real meat of this blog has gone from the post themselves to the debate that rages in the comments.
@AdrianS, I suspect Curt will weigh in with the specifics. However you’re interpreting both the Constitutional PC and due process clauses in places where it is not applicable.
If you do not wish to submit to any kind of screening, you are free not to fly. Just as you are free not to attend any concert in a venue where they screen your entry.
Your very attendence at a concert, or purchase of a ticket on airline travel, constitutes your acceptance – or consent – of “the rules” as stipulated.
Again, why was it ok to waive your 4th Amendment rights when your bags were searched but its not ok to have your person searched? Both are protected in the 4th. But now it’s not ok? If you’re gonna use the Constitution be consistent. And as Mata stated, if you don’t want the search of your property and/or person then don’t fly. Problem solved.
This is currently my favorite political blog. The best part of it is often not the blogpost itself, which simply serves to introduce a topic (Curt is very good at identifying topics of most immediate importance). As someone who isn’t exactly a conservative (I consider myself to be a “compassionate libertarian,” but most everyone here views me as a typical NPR-type liberal — and it took a lot of work to get myself upgraded to that from “Socialist”).
Anyway, the culture here generally ranges from Extreme Tea to William F. Buckley conservative, although it’s national defense issues which seem most to stir the loins around here. Thankfully light on the religious social issues, for the most part.
Truth be told, I regularly learn things here that I’d never have learned from Fox and the Wall Street Journal — again, mostly coming from the comments part of the typical thread. As a lifelong political junkie, I find it eminently worth the time I spend, when I have the time to spend.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA