Seattle Resturant Bans TSA Officers

JeffDG said:
So? If it's not prohibited by law, I need no reason to exclude anyone I damn well please from my property. Provided my reason isn't one prohibited, and employment with the TSA is not a protected class, it doesn't need to be a good reason.

I would be perfectly free to say "No lawyers allowed", or "No IT Geeks Allowed"
Click to expand...

It all depends on how you interpret 42 USC 2000a which, to my knowledge, has never been addressed as to its scope by the SC (I could easily be wrong, though). If you read the language, there are two ways of looking at it, one of which that it protects "all persons" from discrimination, or that it only protects from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin and one other that I can't remember right now.

Considering the result reached in Heller, and the reasoning used, not to mention the history of the US in 1963, I think it would be absurd to adopt the latter (although I do know certain trial courts have done that).
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
You obviously have not been felt up by the TSA lately.
Click to expand...
Nope, I haven't. They have all been polite and helpful whenever I go through. It must be my personality. I think that I have a nice personality. I think that people see that and treat me nicely in return. In fact, just a week ago Sunday I went through the Dallas / Ft. Worth airport and they had one of the scanning machines there. I asked the TSA agent if I could get into it and he said that he didn't have time right then, but if I come back through some time when they aren't so busy he would let me. It's nice to be nice.:thumbsup:
 
Jim Logajan said:
One does not need any particular social climate to demonstrate that ordinary people will follow barbaric orders. Repeated experiments by psychologists have shown a predilection of people to follow the orders of authority figures, even when said orders violate their own conscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Click to expand...
I understand the Milgram experiments, but those relate mostly to closed systems with little outside oversight or influence (hospitals, prisons, very secluded villages, et cetera). The TSA performs its brand of ineptitude right out in public, which prevents the screeners from going buck wild.
I think that some people are way off the mark here. The TSA procedures are stupid, unconstitutional, ineffective, and grossly disturbing.
They don't actually kill people, though. Come on. I can see your point, but I really think that you weaken your position by making a false comparison between the TSA, which is creepy and gross, versus a death camp.
You see: one is an annoyance, and one is a DEATH CAMP where people are held TO DIE.
 
Telemakhos said:
As soon as the TSA corrals travelers into a large pen and holds them there with no potable water, food, or sanitation facilities,
Click to expand...

The TSA hasn't done that yet - but some airlines may have. :wink2:

resulting in the death of 30% of those travelers, then we'll start making Henry Wirz comparisons.
Please, guys, I'm not standing up for the TSA. I really don't like their policy. But I also don't think that the TSA screen procedures are evil or that the people who perform them are evil. Unconstitutional? Probably. Evil? No.
Click to expand...

You argue against a line of reasoning I did not present. I'm talking pedestrian moral choices. Some are more extreme than others - but the principle underlying those choices are, IMHO, the same. I guess for some people the principles change based on the severity of the "wrong". I try to use the same principles, though severity of punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the "wrong." Social ostracism seems a proportionate punishment to me.

Simple question: Do you believe that a person becoming a TSA screener involves any moral choices or not? I can't tell if you believe they have no choice, or that what they do is not immoral.
 
Telemakhos said:
I understand the Milgram experiments, but those relate mostly to closed systems with little outside oversight or influence (hospitals, prisons, very secluded villages, et cetera). The TSA performs its brand of ineptitude right out in public, which prevents the screeners from going buck wild.
I think that some people are way off the mark here. The TSA procedures are stupid, unconstitutional, ineffective, and grossly disturbing.
They don't actually kill people, though. Come on. I can see your point, but I really think that you weaken your position by making a false comparison between the TSA, which is creepy and gross, versus a death camp.
You see: one is an annoyance, and one is a DEATH CAMP where people are held TO DIE.
Click to expand...

So I brought up Milgram and Andersonville in order to provide examples of alleged false "I had no choice" excuses for not being held responsible for one's actions. (I thought I had to present cases that involve no moral ambiguity - I guess that was my mistake.)

So you are saying they involve "false comparisons" with TSA screeners because nobody dies, and therefore the excuse "I had no choice" for their actions is therefore acceptable and they shouldn't be punished in any way - correct?
 
Cap'n Ron woud say something along the lines that the blog is based on unsubstantiated information. Name and address of the restaurant not identified, no sources listed.

I'd agree with his scepticism in this case.
 
Maxmosbey said:
They have all been polite and helpful whenever I go through.
Click to expand...
Same here. They have always been neutral to polite. I've never had one be obnoxious. I finally got to go through the scanner for the first time a couple weeks ago. They asked me if I had anything in my pockets. Ooops I had a few coins. They told me just to hold them in my hands. I would say the scanner took about 10 seconds as opposed to just walking through the metal detector. I didn't realize until I got home that I had on a belt with a metal buckle. Ooops again. They never said anything about it.
 
Everskyward said:
Same here. They have always been neutral to polite. I've never had one be obnoxious. I finally got to go through the scanner for the first time a couple weeks ago. They asked me if I had anything in my pockets. Ooops I had a few coins. They told me just to hold them in my hands. I would say the scanner took about 10 seconds as opposed to just walking through the metal detector. I didn't realize until I got home that I had on a belt with a metal buckle. Ooops again. They never said anything about it.
Click to expand...

My experiences have always been good as well - neutral at absolute worst. One time I went through the scanner, holding my belt buckle. This was in Baltimore, the attendant's (or agent, or whatever the appropriate term is) comment was, "somebody's been in prison." Still makes me laugh now, poor woman was mortified when I filled her in a little bit, she was as good natured as could be.

Another time when I had some really long flight with a few layovers, I took along a volume of one of the densest things I've got (The Decline and Fall, written around the time of the American Revolution, it's the equivalent of eating a porterhouse steak topped with sour cream and guacamole and Canadian bacon in between each layer - good airport material) - woman working the x-ray gave me a polite earful from one end of the machine to the other about how Gibbon was right in many ways but wrong in a few others. Frankly, I was impressed. Wasn't expecting that from a TSA agent, given all of the horror stories floating around on the interwebs at the time.

Those two stand out in my mind. Especially the first - damned if it wasn't funny!

So, I'm with you. Vinegar and honey, perhaps. Or maybe I've just been incredibly and uniformly lucky.
 
Will someone please start a new thread when this is confirmed or busted? There's too much garbage here to wade through.
 
So why does Scott get all the credit for Hilter????? Hmm?????:incazzato:
 
Ron Levy said:
Will someone please start a new thread when this is confirmed or busted? There's too much garbage here to wade through.
Click to expand...
I've been trying to do that, but I can't find anything concrete about it. That same article is repeated for two pages when I search it, but it is strange to me that the name of the Cafe is not mentioned. I would think that would be a big part of the story if it were true. I'll keep searching.
 
"Do You Want To Eat Today"?

I'd love to see them require that "Butch" the bouncer give them an "enhanced" pat-down before allowing them on-premisis....
 
The "I'm just doing my job" is an excuse in most cases. The problem is that the people dictating the policy are too far removed from the people who have to live with it, both going through security and enforcing it. They can't be reached, or if you can reach them, they're removed enough to make it easy for them to ignore what you have to say.

While it may not be fair to the TSA agents to treat them this way (if it's actually happening), they are the link in the chain we have access to. Make life intolerable for them, something may happen. Sit back and complain about it without retaliation of any form, nothing will happen.

The reality is that people don't want to do anything in most cases. Things have to be extremely bad for decades in most cases before people will actually do anything (look at Egypt and Lybia). We aren't anywhere near that at this point. So, people will just keep on letting things get worse... until some point when they decide they won't allow it anymore.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The reality is that people don't want to do anything in most cases. Things have to be extremely bad for decades in most cases before people will actually do anything (look at Egypt and Lybia). We aren't anywhere near that at this point. So, people will just keep on letting things get worse... until some point when they decide they won't allow it anymore.
Click to expand...

This is true, but in our system we have a fairly regular election process that can introduce change.

Unless the elected officials run away and forsake thier duties. :rolleyes2:
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I figured the parallel would be obvious: let's exclude everyone we don't like from places held open to the public. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


There is no law against discriminating on the basis of occupation though. They make a choice to be TSA, a person doesn't choose their race (Michael Jackson may be an exception...), gender, national origin....
 
dmccormack said:
This is true, but in our system we have a fairly regular election process that can introduce change.
Unless the elected officials run away and forsake thier duties. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

The only change is which type of distraction is provided. Nothing else changes. As far as elected officials forsaking their duties, to whom do they have a duty? To the electorate or those who put them in the position to be elected?
 
Henning said:
The only change is which type of distraction is provided. Nothing else changes. As far as elected officials forsaking their duties, to whom do they have a duty? To the electorate or those who put them in the position to be elected?
Click to expand...

So by deserting their posts they reveal who "put them into position?"

Interesting....
 
Maxmosbey said:
Nope, I haven't. They have all been polite and helpful whenever I go through. It must be my personality. I think that I have a nice personality. I think that people see that and treat me nicely in return. In fact, just a week ago Sunday I went through the Dallas / Ft. Worth airport and they had one of the scanning machines there. I asked the TSA agent if I could get into it and he said that he didn't have time right then, but if I come back through some time when they aren't so busy he would let me. It's nice to be nice.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

There is "nice" and then there is a "just go along with whatever the people in authority say" Max, you seem to be confusing the two.

Resent testing shows what a farce even the newfangled systems are: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-be...gh-DFW-Body-Scanner-With-a-Gun-116497568.html

Medical experts are not sure of the long term effects on frequent flyers/flight crews: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/24/business/la-fi-travel-briefcase-20100524

So we have security that is questionable, and may pose a health risk, but hey the "man" says go through it or you can get your breast implants felt up: http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/02/22/alaska-rep-refuses-tsa-airport-pat-down-takes-ferry-instead/ (psssstttt she is even a Democrat...oh the horrors that it is not just some nasty Tea Party people that are ****ed at this crap :rolleyes2:).

Sorry man...I am about as polite as they come most of the time, but polite does not equal sheeple.
 
dmccormack said:
This logic was applied to me as a Nuclear Weapons Technician by well-intentioned Freeziots.

I rejected it then, and I do know.

The TSA mission is not "evil" -- it's inconvenient, invasive, theater, and doubtfully effective.

But "Evil?"

Puh-leese.
Click to expand...
Dan, you're absolutely right about your first point. Calling someone evil bc you engage in research that you happen to disagree with is inappropriate and you're right to reject it.

This is different, though, and I think history will back me up here. TSA labels people "domestic extremists" just because they don't want to go through the body scanner. They are engaged in many documented and many more undocumented abuses at airports. They're trying to start a police state - and that is evil. The DHS isn't very different now from agencies that are in hindsight very evil. Now, you may disagree that we're headed down a very dangerous path and that's fine. I don't know the future either.

But there's no doubt in my mind that fondling people and putting them through a device that has undetermined risks (there's no question that it's bad for your health) without telling them about those risks is evil.
 
sba55 said:
This is different, though, and I think history will back me up here. TSA labels people "domestic extremists" just because they don't want to go through the body scanner. They are engaged in many documented and many more undocumented abuses at airports. They're trying to start a police state - and that is evil. The DHS isn't very different now from agencies that are in hindsight very evil. Now, you may disagree that we're headed down a very dangerous path and that's fine. I don't know the future either.

But there's no doubt in my mind that fondling people and putting them through a device that has undetermined risks (there's no question that it's bad for your health) without telling them about those risks is evil.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm as put off by the police state mentality as the next Liberal Arts major.

I retired from the Army National Guard and disagreed with the post 9/11 "airport security mission."

I've posted on this board about my concern with police units adopting military gear, methods, and mindsets.

But in our republic, the means to change is the election process -- not anarchy, not fleeing to the next state, and certainly not demonization of hirelings.
 
dmccormack said:
Look, I'm as put off by the police state mentality as the next Liberal Arts major.

I retired from the Army National Guard and disagreed with the post 9/11 "airport security mission."

I've posted on this board about my concern with police units adopting military gear, methods, and mindsets.

But in our republic, the means to change is the election process -- not anarchy, not fleeing to the next state, and certainly not demonization of hirelings.
Click to expand...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Which side of the dung pile would you like me to take a shovelful from?
 
EdFred said:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Which side of the dung pile would you like me to take a shovelful from?
Click to expand...

Sorry, Ed, but that's the system.

In case you hadn't noticed, there was a significant election with plenty of incumbants tossed out recently.

Not everyone is aware of that change, however (particularly certain residents of DC).
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
...
But in our republic, the means to change is the election process -- not anarchy, not fleeing to the next state, and certainly not demonization of hirelings.
Click to expand...

+1,000.

[was going to write +1, but you earned 999 because there's a minimum post length :)]
 
dmccormack said:
But in our republic, the means to change is the election process -- not anarchy, not fleeing to the next state, and certainly not demonization of hirelings.
Click to expand...

Means to change is friends in high places well lubed with cash. However, I agree vis-a-vis the demonization thing.
 
dmccormack said:
This is true, but in our system we have a fairly regular election process that can introduce change.

Unless the elected officials run away and forsake thier duties. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

This is something like the media. Their duty is to report the news. But, they end up reporting whatever gets them ratings. Typically, that's not the news.

Similarly, political officials are supposed to do the right thing for their people. In reality, they do what it takes to get them reelected.

The problem with things like the TSA is that, like general aviation, there is a small segment of the population that has to deal with the consequences of it. The larger segment of the population figures "I don't care, I don't have to deal with it" and doesn't realize that we don't care what they have to deal with, either. So, they won't support us because they don't care. Meanwhile, we'll probably support them because we know better.
 
ScottM said:
He only offered that as a one time deal. He found out that repeat customers died out real quick.
Click to expand...

What a scam.......................

He cons all those people down there to enjoy utopia and then then kills them.:rolleyes2:

That Jim Jones should be charged with deceptive business practices, bait and switch and all the other alphabet soup thingies..:cool2::cool2:

Better yet,, lets give him life in jail.:dunno::thumbsup::sad:

Or as last resort lets make him mayor of Chicago..:D:D
 
N801BH said:
What a scam.......................

He cons all those people down there to enjoy utopia and then then kills them.:rolleyes2:

That Jim Jones should be charged with deceptive business practices, bait and switch and all the other alphabet soup thingies..:cool2::cool2:

Better yet,, lets give him life in jail.:dunno::thumbsup::sad:

Or as last resort lets make him mayor of Chicago..:D:D
Click to expand...
You know he shot himself at Jonestown, don't you? I can't figure out if you do or not. :D
 
Has anyone been able to substantiate this story? I still can't find anything that names the restaurant.
 
Maxmosbey said:
You know he shot himself at Jonestown, don't you? I can't figure out if you do or not. :D
Click to expand...

yup.. I know, but playing stupid is my favorite sport..:D

Two things amaze me though..

1- He didn't shoot himself years earlier....

2-- He was able to sucker 900+ idiots to go down there

Rant off.....................................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top