'Dont touch my junk' rally @ Austin today

Nice. Unfortunately, there are still way too many sheeple around :( I guess it is unreasonable to assume that this country would be any different in the face of draconian measures that any of the other examples in history.

This is a great quote from the article:

But when it came time for senators to vote on it, they received a letter from the United States Attorney. It basically stated if the bill passes, TSA would not be able to do their jobs and that could mean flight cancellations in Texas.
Click to expand...

So, if the TSA isn't allowed to touch people inappropriately, they can't do their job. Unbelievable people still have doubts about these clowns.
 
My only question: Where are the other states on this issue? Why must Texas apparently stand alone in protest?

Or aren't there television cameras running anywhere else?

Here's a real fun one that happened just last week at an airport in Arizona:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZdp13LFtOY
 
sba55 said:
Nice. Unfortunately, there are still way too many sheeple around :( I guess it is unreasonable to assume that this country would be any different in the face of draconian measures that any of the other examples in history.

This is a great quote from the article:



So, if the TSA isn't allowed to touch people inappropriately, they can't do their job. Unbelievable people still have doubts about these clowns.
Click to expand...

What Big Gov'ment is saying, is no one else is capable of screening pacs; has to be TSA.
Maybe Texas National Guard troops are unworthy of serving at the federal level also!

Best,

Dave
 
I still think the whole problem is having the government do this screening.

If airlines want their airplanes secured, they can hire private security and do their own thing. Compete on level of professionalism/service.

Yes, prices would go up, and ONLY commercial air travelers would be footing the bill out of the security fees assessed by the airlines.

Would a bunch of airlines go under? Yes. Fine by me.
 
denverpilot said:
I still think the whole problem is having the government do this screening.

If airlines want their airplanes secured, they can hire private security and do their own thing. Compete on level of professionalism/service.

Yes, prices would go up, and ONLY commercial air travelers would be footing the bill out of the security fees assessed by the airlines.

Would a bunch of airlines go under? Yes. Fine by me.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I doubt prices would go up much, if at all. When private security was responsible for these screenings, airlines spent about $750 million (in 2001). Now we're spending about $8 billion (!!!) on this circus.
 
Jay Honeck said:
My only question: Where are the other states on this issue? Why must Texas apparently stand alone in protest?

Or aren't there television cameras running anywhere else?

Here's a real fun one that happened just last week at an airport in Arizona:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZdp13LFtOY
Click to expand...

I think Utah is pondering something along the lines of our bill too. Even if the gov't made Texas a no-fly zone, it would last about 3 days I imagine. The airlines would be throwing a fit and the gov't would figure out a way to make it work.
 
bigred177 said:
I think Utah is pondering something along the lines of our bill too. Even if the gov't made Texas a no-fly zone, it would last about 3 days I imagine. The airlines would be throwing a fit and the gov't would figure out a way to make it work.
Click to expand...

There is NO WAY Obama would allow TSA/FAA to declare a "No Fly Zone" over Texas. He would look like a complete idiot if he did. The whole TSA house of cards would collapse, if only Texas would call their bluff.

Texas, being the largest state in the Lower 48, is the state with the most clout to do it. I hope our legislators grow some 'nads, and get the job done.
 
sba55 said:
That's hard to watch :eek:
Click to expand...

My fists clench in rage every time I watch it.

I tell my kids that we used to spend Saturday afternoons on the ROOF of the terminal building at Milwaukee's Mitchell Field (now Mitchell International) when I was a boy. They had telescopes up there, to help us spot planes, and we would eat a fine dinner at the on-airport restaurant.

They don't believe me.

I don't even recognize what this country has become.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Texas, being the largest state in the Lower 48, is the state with the most clout to do it. I hope our legislators grow some 'nads, and get the job done.
Click to expand...

Please do. Colorado lost our 'nads when all the Californians moved here.
 
Jay Honeck said:
He would look like a complete idiot if he did.
Click to expand...

Hasn't stopped him so far.


Simple solution:
Just make the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders TSA agents at DFW, and the guys not voluntarily waiting in line for their pat down are probably the terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Jay Honeck said:
Here's a real fun one that happened just last week at an airport in Arizona:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZdp13LFtOY
Click to expand...

While I agree the pat-downs go too far, you don't want to use this pair as a rally point. They're a civil disobedience group and look for opportunities like this and play it up.

Another "incident" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwyUI1GIjKs


They're also 9/11 truthers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXLaVTnG5vM

The message is being tainted by the messengers. This family shouldn't be the poster children.

--Carlos V.
 
sba55 said:
But when it came time for senators to vote on it, they received a letter from the United States Attorney. It basically stated if the bill passes, TSA would not be able to do their jobs and that could mean flight cancellations in Texas.
Click to expand...
So, if the TSA isn't allowed to touch people inappropriately, they can't do their job. Unbelievable people still have doubts about these clowns.
Click to expand...

From my perspective, that is a huge deal. Essentially a person speaking on behalf of the federal government claimed that something that in any other context would be sexual assault was a required part of the TSA's job description. This is not right.

Jay Honeck said:
My only question: Where are the other states on this issue? Why must Texas apparently stand alone in protest?
Click to expand...

I don't know. To be perfectly honest, I'm more offended by the uselessness and waste of my time (and tax dollars) than I am the the fondling part. But for whatever reason, people seem to be more responsive to the fondling issue than the larger freedom issue or the sheer waste of the entire process.

I'm going to pledge now that the next time I have my junk fondled at the airport, I'm writing to all my congress folk (and state representative folk) to complain. I encourage others to do the same. I still have to figure out a way to word it that expresses my outrage at the annoyance and uselessness without making it look like I'm one of the bad guys trying to loosen the security restrictions.
 
shenanigans said:
I don't know. To be perfectly honest, I'm more offended by the uselessness and waste of my time (and tax dollars) than I am the the fondling part. But for whatever reason, people seem to be more responsive to the fondling issue than the larger freedom issue or the sheer waste of the entire process.
Click to expand...

Frogs boiling in oil... they don't read their paycheck stubs anymore in this day and age of "direct deposit" and have no idea how much of it goes to taxes, or what it's paying for.

You'd have to give them a statement showing their share of that $8 billion a year, and ask them if they even flew commercial this year and if it was "worth it" to them. They still might not "get it".
 
Jay Honeck said:
I tell my kids that we used to spend Saturday afternoons on the ROOF of the terminal building at Milwaukee's Mitchell Field (now Mitchell International) when I was a boy. They had telescopes up there, to help us spot planes, and we would eat a fine dinner at the on-airport restaurant.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

When I was the airline GM at MKE, 1986, I could drive my car thru the gate, right onto the ramp, and park within 20 feet of my office, protected from jet blast by a blast fence. I had the same parking deal at Peoria.

Ain't no way that is happening now.

In the 70's I took my nephew for a weekly visit to the ORD tower when I worked at ORD. Fascinating.

Ain't happenin' now fer sure.
 
denverpilot said:
I still think the whole problem is having the government do this screening.

If airlines want their airplanes secured, they can hire private security and do their own thing. Compete on level of professionalism/service.

Yes, prices would go up, and ONLY commercial air travelers would be footing the bill out of the security fees assessed by the airlines.

Would a bunch of airlines go under? Yes. Fine by me.
Click to expand...

Airline screening would be more invasive than TSA screening is...they would have to be to limit their liability exposure.
 
Jay Honeck said:
My only question: Where are the other states on this issue? Why must Texas apparently stand alone in protest?

Or aren't there television cameras running anywhere else?

Here's a real fun one that happened just last week at an airport in Arizona:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZdp13LFtOY
Click to expand...

I believe it was yesterday (or Saturday) when I saw a CNN piece on the Texas bill. CNN listed 7 other states that were considering a similar bill.
 
JeffDG said:
Airline screening would be more invasive than TSA screening is...they would have to be to limit their liability exposure.
Click to expand...

I'd bet, though, that airlines would actually implement a trusted-traveler program to reduce the burden on folks that have a very low risk profile. That alone could achieve substantial cost reduction & simultaneously reduce the harassment of folks that are highly unlikely to be a threat.
 
JeffDG said:
Airline screening would be more invasive than TSA screening is...they would have to be to limit their liability exposure.
Click to expand...

So, part of the solution would be to fix the problems with liability suits as well? I'm ok with that.
 
sba55 said:
Nice. Unfortunately, there are still way too many sheeple around :( I guess it is unreasonable to assume that this country would be any different in the face of draconian measures that any of the other examples in history.

This is a great quote from the article:



So, if the TSA isn't allowed to touch people inappropriately, they can't do their job. Unbelievable people still have doubts about these clowns.
Click to expand...


Certainly part of the problem is that the morons at TSA have come to the conclusion that nude-o-scans and groping are essential to security.

I'd love to have a real debate with TSA about how these are neither necessary nor sufficient for security. And since nude-o-scans and gropings aren't neccesary or sufficient, they don't have any justification for cancelling flights to/from Texas airports.
 
wsuffa said:
I'd bet, though, that airlines would actually implement a trusted-traveler program to reduce the burden on folks that have a very low risk profile. That alone could achieve substantial cost reduction & simultaneously reduce the harassment of folks that are highly unlikely to be a threat.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Such a program would require incredibly invasive background checks, not just for initial issuance, but on a continual basis.

TSA has built in immunity from civil suits (Sovereign Immunity). That means they can evaluate and discard the oddball and highly unlikely threats without fear of a massive payout. The airlines cannot, because if one of those threats were to ever come to pass, the lawyers of the families would instantly own the airline outright. Think of this exchange at trial:

Lawyer: So, Mr. Smith, you're the Senior VP, Security at ABC Airways?
Smith: Yes
L: Could you read this e-mail to the court?
S: Mr. Smith, we'd like to sell our services to ABC Airways. We've discovered a direct link between the amount of fiber in a person's diet and their propensity towards carrying out terrorist acts. For a mere $50,000 we will evaluate your trusted traveler program to determine if there is any threat indicated.
L: And, Mr. Smith, what did you do with this e-mail?
S: I ignored it. It was completely preposterous.
L: So, the hijacker of flight 5432, how much fiber did he consume?
S: From what has been reported, a LOT.
L: So, you'd been advised of a potential threat, chosen to ignore that threat, and because of that, this hijacker was able to use your "Trusted" traveler program to gain access and kill over 200 people.
Jurors scribbling furiously
Click to expand...
 
JeffDG said:
Not necessarily. Such a program would require incredibly invasive background checks, not just for initial issuance, but on a continual basis.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true. The background checks need be no more invasive or frequent than those done on airline employees (pilots, FA, gate personnel). They need be no more frequent than are done for pilots with clearance to operate at the DC3 airports.

The airlines also have a treasure trove of frequent flyer data, which includes flight patterns, typical frequency, and other data. More than the TSA currently has (though with SecureFlight the TSA is building such a dossier), and even more than CBP has (since they are only supposed to have international data). This can build a good risk profile on a traveler. I'd submit that private industry can do a far better job of risk profiling than the government (who assumes that everyone is the highest risk).

Further, if you couple that with truly random checks you have a very, very low risk program.

TSA has built in immunity from civil suits (Sovereign Immunity). That means they can evaluate and discard the oddball and highly unlikely threats without fear of a massive payout. The airlines cannot, because if one of those threats were to ever come to pass, the lawyers of the families would instantly own the airline outright. Think of this exchange at trial:
Click to expand...

The airlines can be indemnified by the government in the same way as individual screeners are indemnified now. The airlines gave some things up to gain certain risk limits/indemnification after 9/11. There is no reason a similar process can't be employed as long a certain minimum standards are met.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, as has been proven many times, once a government program is instituted, it is almost impossible to dismantle.

Reference the "Helium Reserve" for just one example of how difficult it is to control a bureaucracy once it is established.

I'm afraid we are stuck with TSA. The best we can hope for is to limit their gropes.
 
sba55 said:
So, if the TSA isn't allowed to touch people inappropriately, they can't do their job. Unbelievable people still have doubts about these clowns.
Click to expand...

I hear McDonalds is doing a big hiring campaign. Hell, maybe they can even get their old jobs back. :wink2:

If I hear one more @$$hat on TV bleat about how the TSA is at least making them feel (emphasis on the FEEL part) "safer" I'm gonna have to perform a brick-ectomy on my TV. :mad:
 
Jay Honeck said:
1984. Orwellian.

Chilling.
Click to expand...
Are there other federal agencies that have a propaganda department? I can't think of one.

TSA = disgrace :( I'm sure this helpes our standing in the eyes of the international community immensely!
 
sba55 said:
Are there other federal agencies that have a propaganda department? I can't think of one.
Click to expand...

The White House doesn't have a huge staff dedicated to propaganda (as an example, not trying to push this to SZ)?
 
Bravo3 said:
If I hear one more @$$hat on TV bleat about how the TSA is at least making them feel (emphasis on the FEEL part) "safer" I'm gonna have to perform a brick-ectomy on my TV. :mad:
Click to expand...
With about 70% of the public feeling that the TSA is preventing air terrorism one oz. at a time do not expect that message to go away.

Besides who in any position of responsibility would ever be so stupid as to reduce the TSA's role? I say that because when the inevitable happens that person who reduced the TSA will be blamed for whatever incident occurred.
 
Bob Noel said:
The White House doesn't have a huge staff dedicated to propaganda (as an example, not trying to push this to SZ)?
Click to expand...
Yes, or course they do have a large PR machine, as do pretty much all other politicians (representatives, etc.). But they aren't a federal agency.

I guess my point is that I can't think of an agency that has to hide behind PR - and intentionally false statements - as much as the TSA.
 
sba55 said:
Yes, or course they do have a large PR machine, as do pretty much all other politicians (representatives, etc.). But they aren't a federal agency.

I guess my point is that I can't think of an agency that has to hide behind PR - and intentionally false statements - as much as the TSA.
Click to expand...

I can link of one company that does....actually, I can think of 3.
 
Here is the part I like from the TSA site.
This incident has also raised many questions about whether or not passengers can film at checkpoints.
Click to expand...
So they plan on solving the problem by just not allowing people to film for evidence. Then it is just a he said she said.
 
ron22 said:
Here is the part I like from the TSA site.

So they plan on solving the problem by just not allowing people to film for evidence. Then it is just a he said she said.
Click to expand...

If they have nothing to hide.....
 
ScottM said:
With about 70% of the public feeling that the TSA is preventing air terrorism one oz. at a time do not expect that message to go away.

Besides who in any position of responsibility would ever be so stupid as to reduce the TSA's role? I say that because when the inevitable happens that person who reduced the TSA will be blamed for whatever incident occurred.
Click to expand...

Funny how I heard nary a word about the security folks at the gates pre-911. I'm still waiting to hear of a single terr'ist these new-and-improved dudes have intercepted.

Maybe after they start porno-scanning and groping our kiddies at the train and bus stops some changes might be coming, but I'm not standing on one leg waiting for that day. Let the airlines go belly up for all I care. :mad:
 
wsuffa said:
If they have nothing to hide.....
Click to expand...

Funny how that "if you have nothing to hide" bit and the presumption of guilt (like walking around with too much cash in your pocket) only apply to the plebes--not the gubbmint.

Wasn't the O-man just blathering the other day something about "transparency"? Yepper. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top