Althouse: Are you going to stop flying?

November 18, 2010

Are you going to stop flying?

Megan McArdle is.

61 comments:

Geoff Matthews said...: Where is 'I rarely fly, and only when work sends me. Will continue'?

Though I'm tempted to ask the screen if they'll still respect me in the morning.; 11/18/10, 6:11 PM
Irene said...: I voted, "I'm quitting flying." It was the best choice, even though I have not flown in thirteen years.; 11/18/10, 6:15 PM
Capt. Schmoe said...: Flying has become such an unpleasant chore for those of us who fly coach, that I only fly when time is an issue or I have to cross an ocean.

I went with the grope in hopes the TSA will be as disgusted as I.; 11/18/10, 6:16 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/18/10, 6:18 PM
Anonymous said...: I go back and forth between Europe and the U.S. all the time so I can't stop flying.

And I don't want to stop flying. Easy international travel is something I value highly; it is part of a good lifestyle for me and brings me great happiness.

But I hate the TSA. HATE! I'll make as much trouble for them as I possibly can. And Janet Napolitano and John Pistole are pure fucking evil... why are they not fired yet, just on the basis of being so out-of-touch and causing so much public dissatisfaction? Is there some hidden agenda where the goal is actually to really piss off and offend most Americans?; 11/18/10, 6:19 PM
reg said...: I'll just avoid the US.but rumour has it that orlando is about to toss the TSA, so maybe Disneyworld after all.; 11/18/10, 6:21 PM
Sprezzatura said...: These "gropes" don't bother me. I've even had one of them. It's a bit weird, but it's no big deal.

Likewise, I don't care about the naked machine.

Maybe, women have more reason to be worried about these "gropes."

IMHO the airlines are much more annoying than the TSA.; 11/18/10, 6:24 PM
Caroline said...: Opting for the scanner doesn't preclude you from getting groped. If the person interpreting your image sees something they cannot identify, or if you are wearing pleats , you will probably be groped.; 11/18/10, 6:25 PM
jimspice said...: That last one should continue "...and let the terrorists win."; 11/18/10, 6:27 PM
Roux said...: Just take a viagra before flying and see what happens.; 11/18/10, 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...: I voted quitting, because I only fly for vacations now. That means, I fly with my young children, and I'm fairly certain I'd go ballistic if anyone tried to touch or screen my kids, and I'd end up arrested.

Better to drive.

WV: uncypho: Yes, I'm not the crazy one.; 11/18/10, 6:34 PM
Sprezzatura said...: You folks who are grounding yourselves still need to worry about the pot bombers.; 11/18/10, 6:36 PM
jd said...: i can see why someone would disagree with me, i totally do--but i don't really think my body, or anybody else's, going through a stupid grey-image scanner is that kinky or interesting to anybody.

and if they do have to do a groin check,well i feel bad for the person who has to administer these checks, not myself.

i an also very easily imagine the indignation had these scanners not been deployed and a 9/11-style attack followed: "You mean Janet Napolitano & Obama KNEW WE COULD HAVE USED BODY SCANNERS AND THEY DIDN'T DEPLOY THEM! FIRE THEMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

really, it's not a big deal. nobody cares what a hazy, not-erotic-whatsoever TSA scanner image of your human body looks like. and if they do, they're a TSA employee in a thankless job making not much money at all, so i wouldn't worry about it.

but like i said, i understand the opposing viewpoint on this.; 11/18/10, 6:41 PM
Caroline said...: The Canadians are laughing at us. A funny video from the comment section of 1jpb's link

(You gotta laugh, even though what they are doing to us is not funny.); 11/18/10, 6:44 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: I don't like the government buying backscatter scanners, and groping people.

That said, there's been a lot of fearmongering over the scanners. The radiation you get from flying in a plane (cosmic rays, gamma) is higher than you get from going through the scanner.

I don't understand why people fear radiation. Driving is many, many times more dangerous, as are five-gallon plastic buckets and smoking. Backscatter machines are unacceptable, but flying and buildings made of brick and concrete are just fine, for some reason.; 11/18/10, 6:48 PM
Michael said...: I maintain that it is all Kabuki: the easiest target at airports is in front of the security area where huge knots of people are made to wait. Whole 747s of people can readily be blown to bits before we hit the Kabuki theater. The danger of fighting the last war is that the enemy adapts. There is no reason to even have to buy a ticket: huge losses and considerable mayhem can be cheaply bought in front of the stupid "security" area. TSA is a pure make work project.; 11/18/10, 6:50 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Single as I'am, I lack human contact.. so I'll go for the grope.

It will bring us closer together.. God knows we need to ;); 11/18/10, 7:01 PM
Lawyer Mom said...: No court has ever held these pat-downs and strip searches are constitutional. But the TSA marches on, forcing these unconstitutional searches on all of flying humanity, unilaterally defining what it deems to be "reasonable." Better to ask forgiveness than permission, it supposes.

So imagine a TSA agent took you into a room at the airport and said "take off all your clothes after I leave the room, then put this veil on your head, raise your arms above your head and slowly turn in a full circle. We have a one-way mirror and someone will be watching you. When the green light comes on, get dressed and return to the sterile area."

How is this different from what they're doing now?

When did we all become conditioned to accept this quest for perfect security? Perfection isn't the test, it's the Constitution.

No more flying for me.; 11/18/10, 7:09 PM
rhhardin said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/18/10, 7:12 PM
Unknown said...: I didn't vote (not like it matters) because I am not sure yet. I am still going to fly, driving from Florida to New York for Christmas seems too daunting. However, I always fly back to my hometown with my 15 pound dachshund. I have no idea what they are going to require me to do with him. Normally, I take him out of his carrier, put the carrier and his collar into the X-ray, and then I carry him through the metal detector.

So will TSA require me to carry my dog into the screener or will he be patted down? Will they check my dog's genitals? What if terrorists started planting bombs in dogs asses (considering how they feel about dogs, not that far fetched), will TSA forbid dogs?

Seriously, I am now thinking about this. My dog has been flying for 8 years and more than most humans, but now I wonder what TSA will put him through. I am pretty open, I really don't care if anyone sees me naked or feels me up (although I think this whole system is going too far in our society), but now I am wondering about my dog.; 11/18/10, 7:34 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: I don't fly much any more and time isn't all that much of a pressing need now that I'm not in business mode.

If my destination is within a 12 or 16 hour drive, I'll take a couple of days and drive. Less stress, better scenery, my luggage won't get lost, I can read a book. nap or knit(not allowed on planes) when it isn't my turn to drive: perhaps find an antique store full of treasures and stop at a restaurant or three along the way.

However, when I want to go to someplace like Costa Rica, there is no choice but to fly.

My plan, unlikely as it is to happen, is that if I am ordered to go into a full body scanner, I will just completely disrobe and stand in absolute nudity in the airport. Maybe even bend over and and take a picture of the TSA thungs with my 'Brownie". I don't care about nudity. It is the principle of the thing.

They don't have the power....I do.; 11/18/10, 7:58 PM
Irene said...: Laura said, "What if terrorists started planting bombs in dogs asses (considering how they feel about dogs, not that far fetched), will TSA forbid dogs?"

Not far fetched.

(Fetch!); 11/18/10, 8:00 PM
jungatheart said...: DBQ did you mean TSA thungs or thongs?

So far, if we take a combination of approaches, one would store up flatulence, take a viagra, strip naked, and moan orgasmically during the grope.; 11/18/10, 8:11 PM
Cedarford said...: A Lawyer Mom's Musings said...
No court has ever held these pat-downs and strip searches are constitutional.
=================
Good luck with that argument. Society has long held numerous "exceptions to the 4th" starting with Customs. Search w/o warrant. Which extends downwards to the ability of the local fire Marshall to search premises for fire code violations without warrant.

The better path is enough people thinking it is stupid and no longer putting up with it. There are a multitude of ways a rebellious public can make the Safety Nazis of Homeland Security have pause.
Write the Las Vegas tourist board or Hawaii's and say your group decided not to fly there for a vacation or work convention because of "body scanner/groping issues" many members had, but will instead decide to drive and keep it local.

Tell others you will not fly until "The Heroes in the Fight Against Man-Caused Disasters" come to their senses. "Why let your 8-year old daughter get groped so she can go to Disneyworld when you can all just drive hassle-free to a number of Virginia attractions for a week instead until all this is straighted out".

There are also personal acts of rebellion. If you must fly, show up at the airport well-doused in high nitrogen fertilizer you "just happened" to spread that day all over your lawn".

Back in the AF, we had a pack of anti-drug Provost Marshall Nazis that were regularly marching into enlisted quarters like storm troopers with search dogs doing "toss everything and intimidate" drug searches. And arresting any giving them lip. Some of the smarter airmen then retaliated - got Intel on the Provost schedule - then "set up the barracks". They doused everything with pepper in one barracks, used marijuana stems and seeds to buff the floors in another, then rubbed seed oil on ordnance and 3 fighter jets in 3 ready hangers.

I thought it was highly amusing and effective - especially as the CO had to face eager storm troopers wanting 3 of his jets taken off alert status for further drug searches, "bombs and 20mm rounds suspected of having pot inside them dismantled" - and the concrete floor of one barracks ripped up to find the pot buried underneath it. And charges filed against all residents of one barracks as weeping and sneezing drug dogs in a cayenne-rich environment had to be carried out of the place.

The bottom line was it ended up with the Provists still anti-drug, still making busts - but convinced by the CO and others they had to cease looking at each serving AF person as their enemy.

A public determined to make life hell for TSA goons can do wonders to adjust behavior, similarly.

Hopefully before the 1st unprofiled Islamoid from Somalia with ties o radical Islam is allowed to fly and blows up his "concealed in his anal cavity" bomb. And TSA starts planning for "needed body cavity searches of 80 year old black grannies, pilots, and boy scouts.; 11/18/10, 8:12 PM
jungatheart said...: Caboose.; 11/18/10, 8:13 PM
BJM said...: I've been wondering what they do if you're wearing a diaper? or a sanitary napkin? Surgical dressing? A Cast?

Blogger Andrew Ian Dodge had his colon cancer surgery scar painfully manipulated.

What about colostomy pouches and other subcutaneous and implanted external medical devices such as a insulin pump? Prosthesis? Do they demand passengers take off limbs?

What will the TSA do when the terrorists talk some dope into stuffing explosives up his butt?

You know the terrorists will test it and if for no other reason than to jerk us around for their own amusement.

Of course CAIR is making noises about exempting Muslim women from removing their head and neck coverings on religious grounds, which may be a bridge too far for most of us.; 11/18/10, 8:21 PM
pm317 said...: Opt for grope: 18%,
Accept scanners: 48%

in time they will make the grope so gross that everybody will want to go through the scanner, then they will need more scanners, Mission accomplished..money from the Rapiscan (yep, how aptly named) CEO to Soros (who benefits from this) puppet Obama's campaign well spent. Follow the money (Check firedoglake blog for more info).; 11/18/10, 8:28 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: It's not just groping; the TSA employees are just so God-darned slow! And they aren't particularly competent either. It's like all the people who got fired from the DMV went and worked for the TSA.

I've been to China and flown on their airlines and our security compared to theirs seems like a joke. For instance: they actually look at your face when they check your ID. I've been through entire airports in the US where not one security person looked at my face when they check my passport. They stood there, bent over ID's, waving people through. Ridiculous!; 11/18/10, 8:30 PM
Anonymous said...: I have to fly on Opt Out Day. How about a poll on that? Should I opt out? I'm not as brave (or obnoxious) as when I was a kid!; 11/18/10, 8:51 PM
Unknown said...: Agree with PatCA. There should have been an Opt Out option.

The real issue is that, if people stop flying, the airlines are going to start applying the pressure and this time, it will be Big Sis and The Zero getting felt up.; 11/18/10, 8:59 PM
Shanna said...: I got tickets for a trip in December before all this mess started, so I will be flying then. Other than that, I usually drive to places that are driveable unless I'm going for work. I don't see myself opting out and going for the grope, unless everyone else was doing it on a specific day.

But...TSA is slow on a normal day. I can't imagine everybody is going to make themselves late when they really need to get somewhere.

I hope political pressure works on somebody, or that the airlines really do think they'll lose customers and switch to private security but I have doubts that is going to happen. It wouldn't be quite so awful if it weren't all so useless. They let people on terrorist watchlists fly, while harrassing everybody else. It's completely insane! Fix that part first. Sheesh.; 11/18/10, 9:34 PM
bagoh20 said...: You could have helped some by including the choice: " I'll fly but hide my bomb in luggage"; 11/18/10, 9:43 PM
bagoh20 said...: I'll fly, insist on the grope and be going commando. You gotta make lemonade.; 11/18/10, 9:46 PM
Michael Haz said...: I will not again fly aboard a commercial aircraft in the US until the US government and all of its "safety" administrations concedes that I, a 61 year old, balding, slightly overweight white man with an American passport, do not fit the profile of a terrorist, and should not have to endure the damned TSA search.; 11/18/10, 9:47 PM
bagoh20 said...: This could finally get that men's skirts craze to take of this time. I always wanted that to go mainstream.; 11/18/10, 9:48 PM
Cedarford said...: edutcher - "The real issue is that, if people stop flying, the airlines are going to start applying the pressure and this time, it will be Big Sis and The Zero getting felt up."

I think big tourist destinations are right up there, and since some states heavily dependent on tourism have whole Congressional delegations that would be ripping mad if air travel in these bad times trashes the local economy even further - they are monitoring the "Heroes of Homeland Security"'s actions very closely.; 11/18/10, 9:51 PM
sunsong said...: Of course CAIR is making noises about exempting Muslim women from removing their head and neck coverings on religious grounds, which may be a bridge too far for most of us.

We are supposed to sacrifice our dignity for safety because of a *real* threat from terrorist Muslims who want to kill us. However, Muslims are complaining about the intrusive *security* procedures and may get a pass because of their religion. What's wrong with this picture?

How would a halfway smart terrorist react to this?; 11/18/10, 10:17 PM
bagoh20 said...: What's needed is a scanner that does not require a human eye to discern the contraband. Surely we have the technology to scan a human and tell meat from explosives and weapons via computer analysis of the scan data. What the hell is so hard about that.

It's easy to fool a person because we all know what we we would be looking for. The methodology could be kept secret and quickly adjusted without training people. It wouldn't be dependent on their competence and attention. A computer would be more accurate, never get tired, and not demand unionization.

Nobody cares if a computer program sees their junk, because for many of us, our computer knows way more embarrassing things about us already.; 11/18/10, 10:33 PM
jr565 said...: Look at the hires picture on drudge. Can anyone tell me that that is a recognizable person? It looks like an alien from Close Encounters. Can the person who's picture that is tell even tell that it's him?
If not, then, serously, where's the moral outrage. If you want to stop flying for these images, then it only makes the airlines less crowded anyway for those not prone to sissy fits.; 11/18/10, 10:46 PM
BJM said...: Hey, maybe an opt out of tooth brushing, changing underwear and showering day would make the groping as uncomfortable for them as it is for us.

Of course the fatal flaw in the plan is that we'd be flying in a stinky plane...wait...we already do.; 11/18/10, 11:03 PM
Skyler said...: You left out tar and feathers again.

wv: roolinma, as in the government thinks they are roolinma ass.; 11/18/10, 11:21 PM
jr565 said...: back in the mid 90,s I saw the Foo Fighters at the Roseland. And to get in they made me open my bag at the door. I was drinking a water bottle at the time or a soda, and they made me throw it out. I was able to drink it really quickly and then threw the bottle away. And then on the way in the bouncer guy actually patted everybody down.
Apparently without even realizing it, my 4th amendment rights were being violated and life as we knew it was ending. Never again would I ever attend a show I was so demoralized at the mistreatment....
screw that I saw the show and it was great, and I didn't even think twice about the fact that I was patted down becuase it was completely inconsequential.
This year I flew in a plane. The only thing added was a slightly longer line and they made me take off my shoes. Didn't do the scanner in either case.
I survived the Foo Fighter groping. People who want to fly can survive their indignities too.; 11/18/10, 11:28 PM
Ralph L said...: All you uncut guys should just whip out your junk to prove you're not a Muslim.; 11/18/10, 11:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, Big Sis has said "further info" on exempting Muslim women will be forthcoming.

Let the rioting begin.

You know what's strange, we haven't heard a peep from Bams or Sheriff Joe on this.; 11/19/10, 12:09 AM
Akiva said...: Someone above said "look at those pictures on Drudge"... yes, look at the LEGS. What do you see...BONES. Not skin outlines, BONES. Look at the feet, see all the BONES.

BONES means SERIOUS X-RAYS.

Now if I'm a pilot or stewardess, do I feel like getting 2 x-rays a day 4 days a week?

In 1930 someone came out with the Shoe X-Ray, to help people see if shoes fit correctly. "Safe and scientific". They pulled them all in 1950 as all the shoe salesmen operating them died of cancer.

A biomedical physicist measured the x-rays, says it's only 1/50th that of a chest x-ray. (And for pilots and stewardesses that means a chest xray every 8 weeks.) But did you notice when you get an xray (even a dental one) they drop a huge lead apron over your GROIN and abdomen?

"Fathers exposed to diagnostic x-rays are more likely to have infants who contract leukemia, especially if exposure is closer to conception or includes two or more X-rays of the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract or lower abdomen. The risk of radiation is greater to unborn babies, so in pregnant patients, the benefits of the investigation (X-ray) should be balanced with the potential hazards to the unborn fetus."

And the older the women the greater the chance of accumulated damage to the eggs - here you get a free xray addition!

So men, no sex within a week of going through a TSA scanner (or if you must have sex please masturbate several times in advance to dispose of possibly damaged sperm). Stewardesses, child bearing is not advised after passing through the scanners more than 150 times, which should take you about 7 1/2 months on the job. Pilots, no more sex for you ever.; 11/19/10, 12:25 AM
jr565 said...: Akiva,
THat is the only objection that people are rasing that are actually valid. That there might be long term effects for these scans. and it's a legitmate one. If it is acutally going to cause long term effects then they shouldn't use it, though it sounds like the effects are pretty mimimal (and you take in a certain amount of radiation from flying anyway.
So as far as it being this grand assaut on your liberties, feh. As to whether it may have long term health effects...maybe; 11/19/10, 12:34 AM
William said...: Someone who is laden with explosives and is planning to blow himself up in the near future must show at least some tell tale signs of anxiety. Shouldn't the TSA be looking for those? Just having someone put their hand on a pulsometer while asking a few questions would perhaps be a more effective screening device....Every year more items become contraband, and the searches beome more invasive. At least for short trips, this is already costing the airlines business. I understand that profiling is a slippery slope but we're already in full slalom down another slippery slope.; 11/19/10, 12:45 AM
jr565 said...: William, if you go full profiling youre going to get just as many calls of outrage as to why they're selectively causing people grief. Muslims who aren't terrorists are going to sream. Civil rights advocates are going to scream and people who inadvertantly caught in the profiling net are going to scream. And it's going to take LONGER than it does now, if that can be believed (if we follow the way they do it at El Al).
In addition to the usual patdowns and x ray machines you'll now have to deal with a long interview/interrogation, sometimes two while they go through your bag looking at everything. For people going through the process it will be even MORE intrusive. So tell people who arent' terrorists who have to get the increased scrutiny why they have to endure these enhanced profiling techniques when they didn't do anything, while others don't. If one person is mad that they got a pat down, imagine if they describe the agent yelling at them and making them cry when all they wanted to do was visit family.

Since Israel has ONE airport and we have hundreds we couldn't possibly get enough trained interrogators to match the level of El Al's so will get a bunch of scrubs doing these coercive interrogations.
And a profile is only good if you catch the person because of missteps. If someone is well trained or doesn't meet the profile they can avoid the trap.
Profiling is good and should be used too (behind the scenes) but it is not noncoercive and isn't that the whole point of the objections to the TSAs actions, that they're going to far? If you're gping to be profiled and you're not a terrorist, the TSA will be going too far. And then the TSA or whoever conducts the profiling will be accused of overreach for profliling too strictly.; 11/19/10, 6:10 AM
jr565 said...: William wrote
Just having someone put their hand on a pulsometer while asking a few questions would perhaps be a more effective screening device

So a patdown is too far, but hooking people up to lie detectors is ok?
I actually have experience with this. I used to work at a store years ago, and there was theft, and they called in a lie detector operator to run a test on everyone. And it was nerve racking as hell, even though I didn't do anything. Because I was nervous and hyperventilating I had an asthma attack. And she took my trouble breathing as a sign that I was trying to cheat the lie detector. Which only made me even more nervous. I had to take the test again another day after taking asthma medication just to get a normal reading. And it was becuase the operator was so unprofessional. Rather than walk me through the process she got me even more nervous by accusing me of lying.
Now put that in the context of an airline. Even if you arent doing anything, you can be totally flustered if the person conducting the interview is the least bit unproffesional or if you are the least bit nervous. Being interrogated about your travel plans by someone trying to find holes in your story will make you nervous.
If you think that someone going through that who is not a terrorist is going to be happy about the process or that there wont be a stink, you're crazy.; 11/19/10, 6:24 AM
traditionalguy said...: jr565...But people know that the entire point of all screening is to assure the flying public that it is safe. That's why this extreme public torture gauntlet induces rage: EVERYONE knows it is worthless theater and that it always has been.; 11/19/10, 7:24 AM
jr565 said...: traditional guy,
For me it's all about security threats. The fact that a guy got through security and noone checked his underwear and he ended up having a bomb there signifies that we have a glaring hole that no one is addressing. We got lucky and it also showed one of the flaws in the system, namely noone looked at the guys underpants.
But going forward, if we refuse to look at peoples underpants we are acknowledging that yes we have a hole in security and we are not going to plug it. So, if people want to bring something on board they will simply put it in their underwear, because that's the place we wont check (and if someone does dare go there they can simply yell assault).
Profiling is nice, but if profiling still doesn't get into that guys underpants then we still have a security hole. The only reason that shoes are no longer going to be used as a means to transport a bomb is because we got smart and checked there. If we stopped making people take their shoes off terrorists would go back to trying to put stuff there.

For those advocates of profiling, are you ok if we do a pat down on someone' underpants who we profile? SO then it's an I'm ok with you feeling up that guys johnson argument, just don't do it to me. Which is a selfish argument, and is fine, but it avoids the point that profiling is not an exact science, and if you allow someone who is profiled to have their underwear checked and that person is not in fact a terrorist, then you are subjecting them to the same needless harrasment that you say you don't want to go through. So how consistent is that? And you could end up, for some reason being that guy on the line who ends up getting pulled aside for suspicion.
But if you don't check peoples underwear and refuse to ever address that security hole, that will be the means by which you give terrorists an ability to bring a bomb or weapon on a plane.
So to me, you have to check peoples underwear. Ideally just the people that are the threat, but that's not necessarily practical So then how do you do it? And the only ways I can think of are the pat down and the full body scan. If there's a less invasive way to do it then I'd certainly be open to it.

But the last thing I want to happen is for the airlines to refuse to check people and then have passengers of all people be the ones to have to tackle a terrorist. Passengers shouldn't have to be security.And if they are then the airlines failed. And if a plane blows up and the airlines didn't check someplace obvious (especially after a terorirst already tried to get a bomb on board in his underpants) they will be sued ,and half the people on board will then complain about how the TSA is incompetent for not dealing with an obvious threat.
A pat down is not going to kill anyone, and many people have already gone through them, prior to the new TSA regulations and haven't battened an eye.; 11/19/10, 7:47 AM
jr565 said...: Traditional guy wrote:
But people know that the entire point of all screening is to assure the flying public that it is safe. That's why this extreme public torture gauntlet induces rage: EVERYONE knows it is worthless theater and that it always has been.

Well the airlines can't guarantee absolute safety, but they can make things MORE safe. If you adress security flaws that makes things MORE safe. If you think that assuring the flying public that they're safe is a fools dream then why even have security at all. Saying "We're going to profile" is someone not theater? Or are you actually saying that would produce safety. Absolute safety? of course not, so then you're talking about the same theater that you accuse the TSA of fomenting.; 11/19/10, 7:50 AM
Michael said...: JR565: Go the the Atlanta airport on a Monday morning. Wait in the security line that will have about 400 or 500 people in it. Have a roll aboard filled with explosives. Set them off in the middle of the crowd. Do not buy a plane ticket. Do not go through security.

We have got to get over this idea that TSA is helping to keep us safe. They are not. We are safe only because our enemies are either stupid or patient.; 11/19/10, 8:24 AM
tree hugging sister said...: Well, I have to admit it WAS the government that turned me off the Friendly Skies, but 25 years ago as a Marine on a chartered flight heading to Iwakuni (Only the BEST for our folks in uniform, by God!), not as a TSA victim. However, watching the TSA implement their "procedures" has certainly given me a reason to stay glued to the seat of my rental car for my traveling needs. I'll just call them my "enablers".; 11/19/10, 8:30 AM
test said...: What's the term for a man who considers himself a woman, but neither has a sex change nor obviously dresses as a woman?

I want to know so I can claim to be one if I'm ever selected for groping, and require a female groper. Since their goal is to make us as uncomfortable as possible we should act in kind.; 11/19/10, 9:10 AM
test said...: Actually, McArdle is not stopping flying. A few posts earlier she says

"As it turns out, I'm flying home on National Opt-Out Day--the day before Thanksgiving, when people are being urged to refuse a backscatter scan, and instead request an invasive pat-down in a private space."

So like most people, she''ll complain and will consider other options since this issue increases the cost in both time and annoyance. But the idea that people used to air travel are going to give it up for anything other than short trips is wrong.; 11/19/10, 9:15 AM
Jeremy said...: So a majority of the locals say: "I'm quitting flying."

Translation: Duh.; 11/19/10, 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: jr565: For me it's all about security threats. The fact that a guy got through security and noone checked his underwear and he ended up having a bomb there signifies that we have a glaring hole that no one is addressing. We got lucky and it also showed one of the flaws in the system, namely noone looked at the guys underpants.

(Rolling eyes.) No, the flaw in the system was not that his underwear wasn't checked. The huge gaping flaw in the system is the utter incompetence of the staff of the "system" who refused to act on huge beeping flashing neon warning signs and intelligence out the wazoo that this guy was trouble. (If your memory of the chain of events surrounding Panty Man's excellent adventure is already hazy, refresh it.) That he was allowed anywhere near an airplane in the first place is a consequence of the glaring incompetence of Janet "the system worked" Napolitano and the rest of the imbecile clown posse, not some "glaring hole" in mechanical scanning protocols.

If it's a "all about security threats" for you then you ought to be against letting imbeciles continue to ignore those security threats because they're too busy play-acting at "security" for fun and profit. Or you think that instituting mandatory anal probes is the prudent and effective fix for the "glaring hole" in our security system that was recently exposed by that failed butt-bomber in Saudi Arabia.; 11/19/10, 11:00 AM
Sigivald said...: I already almost never fly, because I was already sick of security theater and prefer to drive.

If they went back to "go through a metal detector and that's it", along with "and your friends can come all the way to the gate", I'd still almost never fly.; 11/19/10, 1:18 PM
Jeremy said...: Anglelyne said..."(Rolling eyes.) No, the flaw in the system was not that his underwear wasn't checked. The huge gaping flaw in the system is the utter incompetence of the staff of the "system" who refused to act on huge beeping flashing neon warning signs and intelligence out the wazoo that this guy was trouble."

Get real.

There are hundreds of threats, real and otherwise that come across the radar every day of the week. No government can check all of them out without bringing travel to screeching halt.

And we have infinitely more flights on a daily basis than any other country in the world so comparing our systems to others (Israel for instance) is ludicrous.

Between January and August of this year alone we had over 200 MILLION passengers fly out of Atlanta, Chicago, L.A. Dallas, and Denver...so do the math.

Anybody who doesn't want to be checked out before boarding a flight should just remain in their car or truck and drive wherever they want to go.; 11/19/10, 1:41 PM
Jeremy said...: Sigivald said..."I already almost never fly, because I was already sick of security theater and prefer to drive."

So if you live in L.A. and need to get to a meeting in Chicago...you just jump in the car and drive?

No big deal, just adds about six days to the round trip travel time.; 11/19/10, 1:43 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)