The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/nude- ... 96128.html

Would you be ok with it,i wouldn,t have a problem.

I wouldn't, but I bet my wife would. I bet my wife's teenage nieces would have a problem with it too. Teenage girls tend to be very self-conscious.

It looks like it's voluntary, though, and so long as it stays that way I don't think there's much reason for complaint. Don't want to get scanned? Allow some extra time at the airport.

I don't have a problem with it and I don't think my wife would easier. For some reason, people are crazier these days and I don't have a problem with stepping up our security measures. It really comes down to, if you don't like it, don't fly. People have to understand that as much as I don't approve of the war we are fighting, we still are at war and there are many people in this world who would love nothing more than to blow up a plane with 200 passengers on it. And they will do anything possible to do it too. So with that being said, suck it up. No one really wants to see you naked anyways. They are doing their job. People don't have problems at their Dr.'s office. So they shouldn't have a problem here. Just someone doing their job. As the article said, the scanner person isn't even around so they won't even know what someone looks like.

Do I still have to take off or out:

- my shoes

- my keys

- my belt

- my wallet

- my ball-point pen

- my coins

- my jacket

- my hat?

Will it keep the cheese-brained TSA "staff" from trying to confiscate my smallest-model Swiss Army knife? And then trying to give me, a New Yorker, a pious lecture about what happened to "us" on September 11?

That's what I care about.

frankcal20 wrote:It really comes down to, if you don't like it, don't fly.

It's that simple? Why didn't I think of that?

How about if you can't deal with the tiny risk that your plane might be hit by a terrorist attack, then you don't fly? Then the rest of us with backbones can get back to our business trips and vacations without ever-increasing hassles, and you will be perfectly safe from this horrible threat.

Will it keep the cheese-brained TSA "staff" from trying to confiscate my smallest-model Swiss Army knife? And then trying to give me, a New Yorker, a pious lecture about what happened to "us" on September 11?

Cheese-brained?
If you attempted to board with that "smallest-model Swiss Army knife", I'd say you needed the lecture.

Additionally, I would think that you'd understand that the TSA agents have NO... that's zilch, zip, zero... lattitude on what the may permit or must refuse. Don't like it? You can always drive.

Cheese-brained?
If you attempted to board with that "smallest-model Swiss Army knife", I'd say you needed the lecture.

Additionally, I would think that you'd understand that the TSA agents have NO... that's zilch, zip, zero... lattitude on what the may permit or must refuse. Don't like it? You can always drive.

Oh, gee, and I would have called it absent-minded to leave the little Swiss Army knife on my key-chain. Especially since about half the screening places ignore it.

Countertrey wrote:Don't like it? You can always drive.

That's the problem in a nutshell. Why is it an on/off switch like that? Put up with the obnoxiousness and the dehumanizing, or stay home.

If it wasn't for the regulations in the first place, some airplanes could simply hire a guard or two for their flights, and we wouldn't have to stand in hour-long lines, get felt over by one or two guards, and get treated as a terrorist for the great crime of bringing a water bottle with you. The TSA agents have to act like intolerant idiots because that's the nature of a nation-wide standardized law. If any airline would model their business toward pleasing its consumers, they'd be shut down, of course.

The standardized "security" that followed the chaos of government fiat against the airlines own security measures ensures that we are far more miserable when it comes to flying. Don't tell me not to fly because I don't like the tyranny. How about we get rid of the irrational laws and regulations?

The TSA agents have to act like intolerant idiots because that's the nature of a nation-wide standardized law.

I'm sure there are an intolerant idiot or two, perhaps even a Barney Fife, within the TSA. But, in all my travels, I have yet to encounter one who was not pleasant, cooperative and professional. I have encountered numerous grumpy cops at airports... most notably Logan... but also at DCA. Of course, they are not TSA.

I consistently zip through the check points. It's never taken more than 5 minutes (well, there was that New Years Day redeye out of McLaren, which happened to be the first day of 100% baggage X-rays... ). My wife once had to open her carry-on, because her Twizlers resembled the type of tightly wrapped wiring one might use for something bad. The agent thought it was a riot. I thought it was a riot. My wife ate her Twizlers.

Lighten up. I hate this too... I miss the days when I could go to the gate to greet an arriving friend. I miss the days when I could go back to the main part of the airport on a whim, and not be screened a second time. Flying, whether you and I like it or not, is a priviledge, not a right. Whether you are unconcerned about the risk or not, the government responded to demands. You want to rage, aim it at the azzwipes who are truly responsible... the cowards who use planes to kill.

Those who blame the TSA miss the point. You know what you may and may not take on the plane... and you whine when you get caught, having "forgotten". Oh well... should be a lesson learned... but, no... it just proves what jerks the TSA are.

If it wasn't for the regulations in the first place, some airplanes could simply hire a guard or two for their flights, and we wouldn't have to stand in hour-long lines, get felt over by one or two guards, and get treated as a terrorist for the great crime of bringing a water bottle with you.

How'd that work for you on September 11, 2001?
Most of the folks who died were NOT ON PLANES. It's not just travelers who deserved protection. There were janitors, secretarys, stock brokers, cops, firemen, cooks, tellers... and on, and on... who deserved it, too.

CounterTrey, you are either very lucky or very tolerant.

I usually clamp my mouth closed, take off all the required items, say nothing, and wait and wait for my turn.

I noticed that Houston airport has a public address announcement warning that you will be arrested for making "inappropriate" remarks to TSA employees. I don't know if that means "joking" that you intend to hijack the plane (yes, I saw someone pulled at the Zurich airport for such "humor", and thought, well, good, he deseves to miss his plane), or whether it means objecting to the "Little Hitler" attitude some of the TSA people take.

On the good side: a TSA guy in Pittsburgh, after checking that I had submitted my shoes, belt, keychain, said "Let me see your boarding pass and ID...and give us you first-born".

I said, "I've already done that. He's in the Army". The TSA guy laughed and said, "So's mine".

On the other hand, TSA Austin (nice airport if they let you inside) refused to pass that son because he only had a one-way ticket. "I'm flying to see my Dad...he's sick", said my son. I had just had a heart attack, and the doctors weren't sure I would live, so my son had no way of knowing how long he would be needed.

"I decide whether you fly or not", said TSA, "and that's not a good enough reason". My son pulled out his military ID, which eventually convinced the TSA that he was not a member of al Queda.

Couple of years later, same airport, and the TSA picks me for a special search, playing three-card-monte with my belongings, including my wallet. "We're just re-arranging it", they say.

I'm softly spluttering incoherent things about Killeen, my wallet, Soldiers who risk their lives so people in white shirts can pretend to be policemen, when I hear a TSA person say, "Well nobody forced them to join. They're volunteers", and that's it. One of the cliches that I've heard for about five years, and for which I no longer have patience.

It's always said as if to mean, "we have no responsibility for how these young people are used or misused because they volunteered". As if the oath, instead of saying "I swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States..." says "I'm a masochist and I want to be hurt or killed".

So I spent a few minutes demanding that they all enlist. Maybe that's now "inappropriate". Yes, I do drive or take a train whenever possible.

As I said, maybe it's just luck. Maybe some airpoprts, or even some areas, have TSA guards with ordinary common sense. I've run into a few of another sort.

TSA is bull. They are underpaid over confident pieces of....well not all of them. I live right next to LAX and hear them all the time at the grocery store, restaurants, etc and I swear they only talk about screwing with people. With the airlines making so much money, they should spend money better protecting our airport with people who have proper training, and some sort of better respect like our military or our police.

Countertrey wrote:Lighten up. I hate this too... I miss the days when I could go to the gate to greet an arriving friend. I miss the days when I could go back to the main part of the airport on a whim, and not be screened a second time.

So we're in agreement that this kind of security isn't pleasing consumers.

Flying, whether you and I like it or not, is a priviledge, not a right.

That depends on whose property it is. If Southwest and I enter into a contract voluntarily, you bet I have every right to fly. Do you consider home ownership, or your ability to marry your wife, or the exercise of free speech, etc., to be privileges, and not rights?

Whether you are unconcerned about the risk or not, the government responded to demands. You want to rage, aim it at the azzwipes who are truly responsible... the cowards who use planes to kill.

Those who blame the TSA miss the point. You know what you may and may not take on the plane... and you whine when you get caught, having "forgotten". Oh well... should be a lesson learned... but, no... it just proves what jerks the TSA are.

My problem is with the system itself, not my ability or inability to cope with these silly rules. I don't have any issues remembering not to bring anything to the airport with me. But forgive me if I resent the tyranny that this represents.

Countertrey wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:If it wasn't for the regulations in the first place, some airplanes could simply hire a guard or two for their flights, and we wouldn't have to stand in hour-long lines, get felt over by one or two guards, and get treated as a terrorist for the great crime of bringing a water bottle with you.

How'd that work for you on September 11, 2001?
Most of the folks who died were NOT ON PLANES. It's not just travelers who deserved protection. There were janitors, secretarys, stock brokers, cops, firemen, cooks, tellers... and on, and on... who deserved it, too.

I think this only proves my point. How did armed guards on airplanes work on September 11th? I don't know, they were illegal.

There were heavy restrictions and regulations on everything related to flying leading up to Sept. 11th. Airline companies would have been shut down if they had put into place proper security measures. Then 9/11 happens. Is this the excuse that says the government has to handle security?

A citizenry is disarmed, and when they are attacked the government seizes the chance to turn a disaster into an opportunity. . .to pile on more laws and rules. The policy-makers, politicians, et. al. should get a life and stop trying to micromanage this nation out of disaster. It won't work, and the next attack will only mean that more of our liberties (er, privileges, that is) should be taken away. 9/11 is the perfect example of this.


Let me try this analogy. Suppose that a state strips their citizens of the right to bear arms and is successful in disarming the populace. Now suppose that 15 armed bandits storm a mall where there are no armed security guards (since guns are outlawed), rounds up 800 people in the foodcourt, and kills them plus the restaurant workers.

Would it make sense if the federal government introduced security gates to all malls with 20 minute waiting lines? Would it make sense to say "Hey, I hate it too, but going to the mall is a privilege, not a right"? Would it make sense to strengthen the laws against owning guns?

Is the man crazy that suggests that maybe if the mall had been allowed to employ armed security guards, perhaps 800 people wouldn't have died that day? Would it be crazy to suggest that if the populace had simply had their right to bear arms in the first place, it wasn't likely that 15 men could round up 800 people without a single armed resistor? Doesn't it seem like more liberty is needed, not less?

The nude scan is a complete invasion of privacy. It does not get my vote.

Let me try this analogy. Suppose that a state strips their citizens of the right to bear arms and is successful in disarming the populace. Now suppose that 15 armed bandits storm a mall where there are no armed security guards (since guns are outlawed), rounds up 800 people in the foodcourt, and kills them plus the restaurant workers.

Would it make sense if the federal government introduced security gates to all malls with 20 minute waiting lines? Would it make sense to say "Hey, I hate it too, but going to the mall is a privilege, not a right"? Would it make sense to strengthen the laws against owning guns?

Would that make sense? Nope. But then, you are comparing apples and oranges. The right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment.

On the other hand, interstate transportation is considered commerce, the oversight and regulation of which is covered under the Constitution as one of the few governmental actions which it mandates to the Federal Government. The protection of this commerce resource is clearly within the purvue of the Feds, and failure to take measures to improve this following the murders of Sept 11 would have been a violation of this trust, especially in light of public demands.

You obviously disagree... but, apparently, even libertarians can disagree about this. I do not find the current screenings excessive, and especially not tyranical.

The nude scan is a complete invasion of privacy. It does not get my vote.

Fine. If you are pulled out of line because you are setting off the alarms, you would be given two options. You can select the scan, or you can elect to be patted down. Your choice. Vote away.

It seems to me (and who else is writing this??) that our "blunder" on September 11 was to prepare for what an enemy would probably do, rather than for anything they might do.

Hijackers had always flown a plane to Beirut or Lebaanon, and then demanded that some prisoners be released. The air-crews responded according to plan on the first three planes: cooperate, minimize violence and risk, prepare to wait out a long negotiation.

This is more like Pearl Harbor than just that there was a surprise attack.

In 1941, the Commander-in-Chief Pacific (CINCPAC), Admiral Kimmel, had been warned to expect war with Japan soon. He considered what the Japanse would probably do: he prepared the Phillipines, since the Japanese war-aim was known to be the Dutch colony of Indonesia...they needed the oil. As both S.E. Morrison and Gordon Prange (sp? author of At Dawn We Slept ) argued, Kimmel's mistake was to fail to consider all that the Japanese could do.

Having blocked guns -- and here I probably disagree with IrnBru/FFA -- all we needed was to secure the cockpits. Armor them, lock the doors.

As long as no passenger could get through to the cockpit, the planes would have been secure. Further, once people had seen the "flying bomb" trick, as they had on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania, they were more than able to beat down the hijackers. If anything, recall that there were a few incidents where passengers piled onto deranged non-hijackers. Wasn't one near-psychotic man choked to death?

[Different topic, but at Pearl Harbor, junior officers and enlisted men quickly figured out what need to be done, and did it. No overall plan, no orders from above.]

So...I'm willing to have rules enforced as long as the TSA guards have some common sense about it. (The nude-scan seems weird, and over-board. )

I was nearly shot by a very shaky Coastie gate-guard when I stopped to ask directions one rainy night. He kept fiddling with the handle of his pistol, panting and sweating, and shouting, "Getbackinyourcarsir! Getbackinyourcar!". Thinking he might feel reassured if I parked well back from his post and walked to him slowly with my hands spread...a mostly-bald, bearded, white-haired, paunchy middle-aged man...I found that the gate-guard was so afraid of me that it seemed dangerous to let him have a pistol. No common sense.

Since then, I have been on Ft Jackson, Ft Meade, Ft Dix, and Ft Hood; I met confident, friendly people who, as CT asked, did not bend the rules an inch. I was once denied access to Meade when a Soldier noticed that my car inspection had expired two weeks earlier. He apoligized, I said, "ooops, I hadn't noticed", and he showed me how to get my son from the barracks to a gate.

I think it's the attitude of too many TSA'ers that gets to me.

Finally, here's a constitutional theory question, based on reading part-way through Henry Adams' history of the Jefferson administrations: if the government can define the limits of its power by itself, isn't the Constitution a blank sheet of paper?

(Note the insistence of the Bush administration that it can establish new courts, set their rules, and decide when and if American citizens should be subject to these courts. Sure, other administrations have done smaller things on the same principle -- and there was Lincoln during the Civil War -- but we live under this administration.)

Countertrey wrote:Would that make sense? Nope. But then, you are comparing apples and oranges. The right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment.

Well, as I'll try to show below, I don't think things are that different even according to the constitution. Nevertheless, the principle in both cases, to me, seems to be the same, regardless of how the commerce clause might bear on things.

On the other hand, interstate transportation is considered commerce, the oversight and regulation of which is covered under the Constitution as one of the few governmental actions which it mandates to the Federal Government.

I guess I don't see that as a legitimate excuse to infringe on the rights of citizens. Now, the commerce clause is one of the most used phrases in arguing for the right of the government to step into a situation. The most common interpretation of its scope is everything under the sun.

It isn't even hard to see a connection in my 'mall' example, I don't think, since malls are veritable storehouses of every kind of imported good, from countries abroad and especially the other states. If all of that commerce is going to be attracting so many people, then it doesn't seem unreasonable that the government should take an interest in it, especially in light of a massacre at the mall that happened while citizen security was 'asleep at the wheel'. . .and given the public outrage following it for heightened security at malls.