flying today rant

[stinky93071]

Rant on!
So I am sitting in the airport (DFW) getting ready to fly out and you would thing the world is coming to an end because women can not take liquid on a plane.. Is it so hard to put all the crap they carry in the bag and check it..? Come one.. It’s not that hard. Put your stuff in the belly of the plane..
Also the line would go 10 times faster and if you just do what you are asked to do and no put up such a fight. No one is going to make you take you’re your cloths but it would be nice if you didn’t buck the system and go ahead and take everything out of your pockets and your belt off. Take your shoes off and walk on through.. It’s not that hard. After all, it is for your safety.
If they let a Middle Eastern guy walk right through the way you want to. You would throw a fit so do not throw a fit when they ask you to do the same thing they have him do.. Get the freeken chip of your shoulder and get it over with.. It’s for everyone’s safety.
Ok rant off…

Oh and by the way there are some hot as women walking around the airport I love this place..

[Squeaky]

I dress for a flight based on security. No belt, no watch, just plain-jane t and jeans. If possible, I wear shoes that slip on and off so I don't have to sit down and tie the laces again.

This morning's thing with liquids was out of the ordinary and could not have been planned for, but the other stuff has been known for so long I wonder why people think they can ignore the rules?

[3D02]

Even though I would prefer to dress a little nicer for air travel, I wore shorts, T-shirt, and flip-flops, when I flew to KC last week. Put all the stuff in my pockets into my backpack for x-ray, and walked through. Got tired off having to remove my belt and shoes everytime.

[Rob_S]

OK, that's it!! The next time I have to travel to San Jose I'm riding :rider:

rob

[Squeaky]

OK, that's it!! The next time I have to travel to San Jose I'm riding :rider:

Good solution! :clap:

And with all this fuss, I can't get the Continental website to behave so I can book a flight! ARGH! :doh:

[stinky93071]

hey i would ride to but i do not think i can make it to Denver in 1 day without some kind of ticket and i have to take to much stuff with me for work..

[bobcat]

Even though I would prefer to dress a little nicer for air travel, I wore shorts, T-shirt, and flip-flops, when I flew to KC last week. Put all the stuff in my pockets into my backpack for x-ray, and walked through. Got tired off having to remove my belt and shoes everytime.

I find it to be quite a conundrum, whether to dress to get through security easily, or dress to survive a plane crash. I used to watch a lot of programs on The Learning Channel about plane crashes, and how to survive plane crashes, etc. Apparently with most plane crashes, the majority of people survive the crash, but are then injured and/or killed by the subsequent fumes and fires in the cabin. The main suggestions about clothing were to wear natural fibers like cotton, and cover up as much skin as possible, (long pants, long sleeve shirts) due to the chance of a "flash fire" going through the cabin in the event of a crash. They also suggested wearing sturdy shoes that won't fall off as you're scrambling for the exits (no sandals!).

Just one more thing to worry about in life. :rolleyes:

[Thermalser]

I find it to be quite a conundrum, whether to dress to get through security easily, or dress to survive a plane crash. I used to watch a lot of programs on The Learning Channel about plane crashes, and how to survive plane crashes, etc. Apparently with most plane crashes, the majority of people survive the crash, but are then injured and/or killed by the subsequent fumes and fires in the cabin. The main suggestions about clothing were to wear natural fibers like cotton, and cover up as much skin as possible, (long pants, long sleeve shirts) due to the chance of a "flash fire" going through the cabin in the event of a crash. They also suggested wearing sturdy shoes that won't fall off as you're scrambling for the exits (no sandals!).

Just one more thing to worry about in life. :rolleyes:

Thats it, I'm going ATGATT including full face helmet next time I fly!:borg:

[roundblack]

*ding* you are now free to move around the country

[Dirtrideroader]

hey i would ride to but i do not think i can make it to Denver in 1 day without some kind of ticket and i have to take to much stuff with me for work..

Denver is only 18 hours from Houston. Easily done in a day...

[pacman]

Well, here I sit in podunk Valdosta, GA, 2 hours delayed for my puddle jumper to Atlanta. I'll probably miss my connecting to DFW, but so far it's delayed just as long. I had no checked bag, so I had to throw away my deodorant, toothpaste, shampoo, soap (travel size-no big whoop). The only thing that ticked me off was throwing away the 20 oz Dr Pepper I'd just bought at the snack bar.:angryfire I can live without deodorant and toothpaste!

Nice thing about being stuck in podunk regional airport? Free wireless!! :trust::clap:

Wonder if I'll make it back to my home country tonight?

Boogie back to Texas......:rider:

[SirWilhelm]

Speaking of moving freely around the country:
Where are the other 9 Jordanian students?

Dang George Orwell. It will be iris scans to get thru the airports in the next year, I'll bet.
You are already vidoe taped.

Oh and on the shoes and stuff. We were going thru San Juan three years ago, and SWMBO decided the floor was too dirty to take her shoes off, and refused to walk on the filthy floor. OMG, I thought, another vacation shot, and we'll be in Puerto Rico with feds for a week.:giveup:
Didn't happen, but then they checked bags and her matches fell out. I don't know her officer. But when she starts to have her cigarette withdrawal, don't stand too close..... She threw a golf club the last time we tried cold turkey.
:-)

But why aren't we worried about Egyptian students? Aren't they from one of the same countries the others players have come from?

[Hardertr]

I find it to be quite a conundrum, whether to dress to get through security easily, or dress to survive a plane crash. I used to watch a lot of programs on The Learning Channel about plane crashes, and how to survive plane crashes, etc. Apparently with most plane crashes, the majority of people survive the crash, but are then injured and/or killed by the subsequent fumes and fires in the cabin. The main suggestions about clothing were to wear natural fibers like cotton, and cover up as much skin as possible, (long pants, long sleeve shirts) due to the chance of a "flash fire" going through the cabin in the event of a crash. They also suggested wearing sturdy shoes that won't fall off as you're scrambling for the exits (no sandals!).

DOO WHAAT?? :brainsnap :huh2: Do you SERIOUSLY dress for plane crash survival?? Your chances of getting hit by lightning are greater than being a victim of a plane crash!


With the current situation, I think we should all have to fly in a thong a tube-top WITH NO CARRY ON!

Can you imagine all the business you could pick up if you owned an airline company that enforced this rule? There could be an express line through security for you, plenty of "on board entertainment" AND you would arrive comfortably and safely at your destination.

[fallendown]

With the current situation, I think we should all have to fly in a thong a tube-top WITH NO CARRY ON!

Can you imagine all the business you could pick up if you owned an airline company that inforced this rule. There could be an express line through security for you, pleny of "on board entertainment" AND you would arrive comfortably and safetly at your destination.

The profit margin would be eaten by the higher than normal consumption of "Barf Bags"

[SirWilhelm]

Terry you really don't want to see me in a thong and flip flops!:eek2:

But there is a picture someone had of an Airline called Nude Air.
Just let your imagination go there. And then you need to come see what I see at work.
SCARY!
Worse than the Women of Krispy Kream Calendar!
ORCA!
:-)

[Squeaky]

I had no checked bag, so I had to throw away my deodorant, toothpaste, shampoo, soap (travel size-no big whoop). The only thing that ticked me off was throwing away the 20 oz Dr Pepper I'd just bought at the snack bar.:angryfire I can live without deodorant and toothpaste!

So are the concessions stands at the airport going to stop selling anything liquid?!?!?! There's gotta be a better way.

Why not just check the whole bag that you were planning to carry on? Less to haul around the airport, too.

[bobcat]

DOO WHAAT?? :brainsnap :huh2: Do you SERIOUSLY dress for plane crash survival?? Your chances of getting hit by lightning are greater than being a victim of a plane crash!


Eh, I don't like to fly in the first place, and watching those programs may exaggerate those fears. But I have to fly somewhere about once a month for business, so I don't have much of a choice. It makes me feel more calm to dress that way, knowing that I'm at least a little prepared for something that is completely out of my control, so mostly I do wear cotton, and sneakers, although sometimes I'll get a little wild and wear a short sleeve shirt. :-P

I also count the number of rows to the nearest exit so that when the fuselage fills with smoke, I'll know how many rows of burned and shoeless people I have to climb over to get out the exit. What a great topic, huh, just a great way to brighten the day! :sun:

[Tumper]

Well, the terrorists have succeeded again in disrupting commerce and people's lives. They don't even have to "do" anything, just get busted and the real terrorists (the news media) take it the rest of the way for them by creating mass hysteria.

[Cagiva 549]

You can trust your goverment , they will take care of you , just ask an Indian . SEYA

[1TallTXn]

The only thing that ticked me off was throwing away the 20 oz Dr Pepper I'd just bought at the snack bar.:angryfire I can live without deodorant and toothpaste!

Wonder if I'll make it back to my home country tonight?

Boogie back to Texas......:rider:

How to tell your a TRUE Texan! :clap: :lol2:

[1TallTXn]

You can trust your goverment , they will take care of you , just ask an Indian . SEYA
+1

[Jack Giesecke]

My solution is I don't fly, period, end of statement. It's just too much hassle anymore and I got nowhere to go I can't get on a motorcycle anyway.

[Soloman]

I fly 3-4 nearly every single week and I really don't have much issue with the level orange and new restrictions except two things.

1. I'm being told by numerous people we're no longer allowed to take electronic keys on the plane. Now I have no problem checking my company laptop, but I'm darn sure not going to check my car keys.

2. I'm fine with not being able to take any liquid drink past the security check point. Although if I could find the right person I'd like to try and take some breast milk through since that's an approved liquid. In any case not being able to take a liquid I purchase past the security checkpoint onto the plane is stupid. If they want to serve me more to drink of what I want to drink on the plane and not charge me like they do now for food, that's just wrong. I presume all the liquid past in this area has gone through some sort of security check so lighten up a little.

I haven't check my flight for tomorrow from Seattle to Charlotte, but at this point, there are still three hour delays to get through security here. I'm hoping it lightens up a little by noon tomorrow, but I'm told 3 cruise ships leave every Friday and Saturday from the SeaTac terminal adding an additional 5,000 people each day. I suppose a few extra days in Seattle wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Greg in H-Town]

Rant on!
So I am sitting in the airport (DFW) getting ready to fly out and you would thing the world is coming to an end because women can not take liquid on a plane.. Is it so hard to put all the crap they carry in the bag and check it..? Come one.. It’s not that hard. Put your stuff in the belly of the plane...
They are not the problem; it isn't their fault that just today they found out that their toothpaste is a weapon of mass destruction. The problem is that our fine TSA folks and the Homeland Security bureaucrats have no fricking common sense when it comes to reacting to these things. I know, they have to do something or risk being blamed if something happened because they didn't check, but the massive backups in the airports because grandma has to toss her Dasani or else is just silly.

Let's review:

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/4858/turristsli2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Let's weed 'em out a little bit and be a little smarter about who needs checking. Profiling? You bet. Unfair? Yep, but so is getting blown up... deal with it.

[P-Ratt]

I have obviously missed out on some great story somewhere. I don't regularly fly, so I don't keep up with what is permissable or not. What's the deal with fluids?

One of the last times I flew I had a carpenter's knife in my carry-on (backpack with multiple compartments.) It showed up on the x-ray and I was asked about it. After explaining that I had forgotten that it was in there, I was told I needed to remove the blade to proceed. I pulled off the blade, gave it to the agent, and went on my way without a word about the other 6 blades inside the handle's storage compartment.

[Greg in H-Town]

www.drudgereport.com among others. The paper and just about every news channel will have this for weeks.

:roll:

[Hardertr]

The problem is that our fine TSA folks and the Homeland Security bureaucrats have no fricking common sense when it comes to reacting to these things. I know, they have to do something or risk being blamed if something happened because they didn't check, but the massive backups in the airports because grandma has to toss her Dasani or else is just silly.

DUDE...Do you guys not have access to the same news I do???? Oh wait, probably not.....

They are using women, children, elderly and cripples as suicide bombers. AND, to top it off, there are quite a few "American sympathizers" that wouldn't think twice about blowing you and your family up...just for a taste of those "promised virgins" waiting on the other side.

You folks with your anti-government slant kill me!

On the bright side, your "need" for privacy and "civil rights" sure add to my job security. :rolleyes:

[Rocket_Cowboy]

OK, that's it!! The next time I have to travel to San Jose I'm riding :rider:

I'm thinking seriously about riding to Vegas next week rather than fly. I mean ... the delays they were reporting this morning ... it's almost quicker for me to just ride there rather than deal with both airports! :D

That, and I think my boss just wants to see the bike in Vegas. LOL

[Squeaky]

I would love to ride to NY instead of fly, but I just don't have the time. I'm flying in Saturday morning and out Sunday night. I don't even think I could make it one way in that time.

[Greg in H-Town]

They are using women, children, elderly and cripples as suicide bombers.
Haven't seen a plane taken down yet by any of the above.

AND, to top it off, there are quite a few "American sympathizers" that wouldn't think twice about blowing you and your family up...just for a taste of those "promised virgins" waiting on the other side.
I can get that in my old neighborhood off Airline Drive (except for the virgins, though). But again, the only ones that we know of that are actually trying to do this sorta fit the description in the picture.

You folks with your anti-government slant kill me!
No, that would be the other guys trying to kill you...

It's not an anti-government thing, it a "this doesn't make sense" thing. Political correctness and 'sensitivity toward other cultures' and whatnot forces us to poke and sniff and inspect the toes of everybody getting on a plane, even a kid or grandma or Cynthia McKinney, and not focus on the ones that fit the the profile because we don't want CAIR on our backs because of it. Add to that the documented ineptitude of the TSA (so how many news crews have slipped guns and knives and bomb-looking things through by now?) and you don't have a lot of faith in the system

On the bright side, your "need" for privacy and "civil rights" sure add to my job security.
Really? How, exactly? And why quote those terms as if to imply that you have a different view of the "need" for "civil rights"?

[Plane Dr]

Personally I think TSA is typical of government. The couldn't find their (insert anatomical reference here) with both hands and help. That being a generalization and no specific persons being mentioned.

Good example for you. I work for an Airline. When flying on other airlines we use passes. They flag in the computer the same as a walk up cash ticket. Oh wait, TSA requires airlines to mark those ticket types as the tickets for the "your airline has selected you for additional screening BS". Even showing TSA my badge, with ramp clearance, they checked my 6 month old sons diaper. Um, ya, big security boost there.

TSA was slow to impose basic security in use everywhere else in the world and are now quick to overreact with whatever silliness strikes their fancy at a given time. I don't think we are safer except now due to the lines we spend more time on the ground and less flying. If the American public held these guys accountable maybe reason would set in. As it is we seem to be willingly sacrificing alot in the name of "safety".

Besides if you have nothing to hide why would you care, right?

If you happen to be in on a real plane crash good luck. You will either live or not. Pretty much a dice throw there.

I personally worry more about being underneath when bits fall off..

Geez, I guess that turned into a rant . I apologise.

[Greg in H-Town]

Besides if you have nothing to hide why would you care, right?

I would care because even if I had nothing to hide, I am now being presumed to be as guilty as any criminal and will be monitored as such. Call me paranoid, but I think that's something to worry about.

(there's a Ben Franklin quote that needs to go in here somewhere; something about safety, liberty and all that)

[Don Ricardo]

"Those that would give up :giveup: a little liberty for greater security deserve neither.":thumbd:

(something like that)

[STrider]

...they checked my 6 month old sons diaper.


Dude, diapers should be changed on at least a weekly basis. 6 months is waaay too long.

[pacman]

So are the concessions stands at the airport going to stop selling anything liquid?!?!?! There's gotta be a better way.

Why not just check the whole bag that you were planning to carry on? Less to haul around the airport, too.

It had my very unprotected laptop in it. I figgered I'd be gentler with it than the baggage gorillas.:lol2:

[igo-wfo]

when it comes to reacting to these things

Therein lies the root problem.

They are and will always be REactive instead of PROactive.

You want to see air security? Go talk to the Israelis or the Germans/Europeans.

But the ADD riddled/instant results american public just CANNOT stand to be inconvenienced whatsoever and being proactive will cause just that.

[Soloman]

You want to see air security? Go talk to the Israelis or the Germans/Europeans.

Can't speak for the Israelis, but German, Italian, and French air security is no different than ours and you even get to keep your shoes on. Germany has the worst asking you all the same questions we used to get asked here, like "did you pack your own bag, has it always been in your possession, etc"
Things may have changed in light of this, but I've been through Frankfurt, Milan, and Bologna seven or eight times already this year and it's no big deal.

Today here in Seattle, I once I got to the airport, I checked my bag and was through security in less than 15 minutes. Now I got to the airport 5 hours before my flight is scheduled to take off and during a scheduled lull in departures for my departing terminal. The security I experienced today is no different than what I normally see. The biggest difference is the massive lack of rolling carry on baggage which great in my opinion. Now if I can just make it through the next 4 hours with succumbing to total boredom.

[roundblack]

Let's weed 'em out a little bit and be a little smarter about who needs checking. Profiling? You bet. Unfair? Yep, but so is getting blown up... deal with it.

TERRORIST
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Timothy_mcveigh.jpg

TERRORIST
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/Nichols2.jpg

TERRORIST
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Mn_kaczynski.jpg

[Hairsmith]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[igo-wfo]

no offense, but the ben franklin quote is getting a lot of miles on it.

[Rocket_Cowboy]

no offense, but the ben franklin quote is getting a lot of miles on it.

Has it reached Platinum yet? :-D

[Greg in H-Town]

TERRORIST
Timothy_mcveigh
Nichols2
kaczynski

Point taken, but that's 3 (actually at least 4 - you forgot Eric Rudolph) vs. how many hundreds of terrorists of Muslim/Arab descent that we know about?

[Tourmeister]

:tab Fear will win the day. Freedoms will be lost. It is inevitable because fear is the easy way out. Freedom requires much more risk than people seem willing to assume :shrug:

[Hardertr]

Haven't seen a plane taken down yet by any of the above.

When is the last time you saw a plane taken down by a shoe bomb? Never?? So why bother searching shoes? When was the last time you saw a picture (or video) of a child strapped with explosives walk up to a military convoy and detonate? Never?? Press won't show it because it's easier to get a reaction at the expense of a Muslim man than a society with no limits.
You can trust your government, you can trust your press, or you can trust your instinct. I for one think the government is better equiped to determine what a potential threat is and what is not.

Really? How, exactly? And why quote those terms as if to imply that you have a different view of the "need" for "civil rights"?
Everyone feels their needs are greater than the next guy's. It's my job to serve a government (not country...because a lot of American's are so self-centered I refuse to acknowledge I serve for their freedom).

The Constitution has fallen prey to the same individual interpretation and self-indulgent paraphrasing as such books as the Bible, Quran and any other writings which allow the concept of "loop holes" to be introduced. Current civil liberties and needs for security were not at the front of our forefather's minds when they place the rules on paper. They did make some efforts to use foresight, but they could not have predicted the complexity an educated society adds to the mix.

Where do we draw the line now? Do you want the government to step in ONLY when it benefits YOU? I absolutely DESPISE the welfare system, but the government saw it as a necessity...so it's there AND it does benefit many people. I don't think the government should tell me I HAVE TO put money into Social Security, but I do...and many people will benefit from that as well. Should the government step in and dictate security measures to private airline companies? Probably not...if these companies provided adequate security and screening themselves the government would have to look like the bad guy. If the private companies did it, the reasoning would be accepted with much less anxiety.

[Reformed Squid]

Unfortunately, as long as someone is willing to sacrifice their life to take yours there is very little that you can do to stop them. They have the advantage because they get to choose the time, place, and method of the attack. The best you can hope for is like what happened yesterday, but in the end this is really nothing more than a draw because they were already prepared to die and even though caught they were still able to send shockwaves of fear throughout the world.

At the end of the day, screening for specific weapons rather than potential terrorists will always fail. What happens when someone decides to have the explosvie implanted into his or her body? While it may not be politically correct, profiling is the only way to even successfully attempt to stop them.

The Israli's have had great success because no matter how hard one tries to look and act normal, it's impossible when you're about to consiously take your own life and those around you.

I forget which Revolutionary figure said it (Hale I believe), but "I'd rather die on my feet than on my knees".

RS

[Tourmeister]

You can trust your government, you can trust your press, or you can trust your instinct. I for one think the government is better equiped to determine what a potential threat is and what is not.


Everyone feels their needs are greater than the next guy's. It's my job to serve a government (not country...because a lot of American's are so self-centered I refuse to acknowledge I serve for their freedom).

The Constitution has fallen prey to the same individual interpretation and self-indulgent paraphrasing as such books as the Bible, Quran and any other writings which allow the concept of "loop holes" to be introduced. Current civil liberties and needs for security were not at the front of our forefather's minds when they place the rules on paper. They did make some efforts to use foresight, but they could not have predicted the complexity an educated society adds to the mix.

Where do we draw the line now? Do you want the government to step in ONLY when it benefits YOU? I absolutely DESPISE the welfare system, but the government saw it as a necessity...so it's there AND it does benefit many people. I don't think the government should tell me I HAVE TO put money into Social Security, but I do...and many people will benefit from that as well. Should the government step in and dictate security measures to private airline companies? Probably not...if these companies provided adequate security and screening themselves the government would have to look like the bad guy. If the private companies did it, the reasoning would be accepted with much less anxiety.

Hmm... :ponder:

:tab Please explain exactly "who" the government is that you serve? Is it made up of some special group of people that are somehow better than the people that make up our country? Is it some elite group that is privy to a higher wisdom than the rest of us? Are they somehow more capable of understanding issues than the "common man"? I am very serious and not in any way trying to be sarcastic or condescending.

:tab In our country, we vote for our leaders. So it is interesting that all those self centered and self indulgent people are qualified to chose their leaders. Further, these leaders are chosen specifically to serve the interests of the voters and yet you argue that serving the people and serving the government is not the same thing :scratch: If we accept this proposition, then it follows that the interests of the government and the interests of the people are NOT the same. That being the case, I cannot fathom how you can argue that we can trust the government?

:tab We have had many cases where it has come to light that our media has been misleading us, often intentionally. The Dan Rather case being the most notable of recent years. To try to argue that the major media conglomerations are not heavily slanted in their reporting would seem to fly in the face of self evident reality. Yet you seriously contend that we can trust these people?

:tab I don't think it is valid to argue that society now is somehow more complex than it was in the days of the founding of this country. Technology is more advanced now, but people are people and that has not changed. Piracy was a rampant problem during 1600-1800's. It was bad enough that many bitter rivals like England and France worked together to attempt to rid the sea lanes of pirates. Wars with Spain, France and England at various times occupied the inhabitants of the colonies and later our nation. Wealthy groups of businessmen fought over control of the various stages of government prior to our Federal Government's birth. Napolean was set on conquering Europe. Wars dotted the globe. The idea that life was all simple and easy to cope with back in the old days is a myth.

:tab The principles set forth in the Constitution are not somehow obsolete. That is an argument LONG used by people (typically those in the government, even before the Civil War!) to justify reinterpreting the restrictions on government power in a manner to allow for the expansion of government power. It is a shame that more of our citizenry does not spend time reading Supreme Court cases. If they did, they would see a consistent history of the Court allowing expansions of government power in almost every case while at the same time restricting personal liberties and private property rights. There have been few exceptions and even those have typically been short lived. It has not been an effort by the ignorant masses to vitiate the Constitution, but the very people you argue that we can trust. And it started even before the Constitution was ratified.

:tab I am anti-government for one reason. It is because the government is anti-me ;-) I want secure property rights. The government abhors secure property rights. I want to be left alone to decide things for myself and take responsibility for my decisions. The government abhors decisions it has no control over. I want to be able to enjoy the fruits of my labor as I see fit. The government abhors people spending money on things it does not like. I want to be able to save some money for the future and have it actually be worth something when I need it. The government is debasing our currency so fast that saving is a losing proposition. Moreover, it confiscates my current wealth for Social Security which is just another tax, puts it in a nonexistent trust fund, and fraudulently claims I am earning benefits to which I will be entitled later, all of which the Supreme Court actually admitted and ruled on in several cases! I want to be free to educate my children as I see fit. The government wants to eliminate parental authority over kids in favor of "Rights of the Child" to be free from such oppression. It wants to subsidize private schools and even homeschooling, which always means more control. It wants to enforce a one size fits all scheme of education. I want to be free to defend myself as the Consitution allows. The government wants me to be disarmed. I want freedom for all of us. The government is inherently anti-freedom by its very nature. I don't want to be treated like a criminal when I am not one. The government wants to treat everyone like a criminal and then claim, "if you aren't hiding anything, what's the problem?" I could give many more examples, but I think this will suffice to make the point. ;-)

:tab Why would I want to support this government? :scratch:

[Plane Dr]

Dude, diapers should be changed on at least a weekly basis. 6 months is waaay too long.


Bwaaahhaaaa haaa :rofl:

[txbanditrydr]

:clap: :clap: Once again Scott puts things in a readable fashion I never could... and I concur.

On the lighter side of things.....

They did make some efforts to use foresight, but they could not have predicted the complexity an educated society adds to the mix.


..... I look at the masses (okay, in Wal-Mart) and wonder just how "educated" our society really is - as a whole. :lol2:

[Tourmeister]

I look at the masses (okay, in Wal-Mart) and wonder just how "educated" our society really is - as a whole.

:tab From the reading I have done, not very well as compared to people two hundred years ago :doh: Spend some time reading articles from old newspapers on political topics like property rights, monetary policy, free markets versus regulated markets, and more, and you will be amazed at the level of understanding of the "common man" back then. There is a widely held belief that the VAST majority of people before the turn of the century, and the advent of public schooling, were scarcely better than ignorant brutes. I have seen very litte in my reading of materials from that time period to indicate this. I am not saying everyone was some kind of genius or literary giant, but they did have a solid grasp of the issues. I believe this is just another myth widely believed for no reason other than it is so oft repeated.

:tab A big part of the education was in the home. Recall that the bulk of the people that came to this country were Protestants fleeing state religions in Europe. To the Protestant, being able to read the Bible is important. In many families, if they had no other books, they usually still had a Bible and they read from it. Contrary to those people that seem to think the Bible is a silly collection of stories from another time with nothing to teach us about the modern and complex societies we live in today, it touches on almost all the issues we face in life, from personal to societal. Heck, it covers economics, education, property rights, individual rights, government, and so much more. IF people read only one book in their lives and actually studied it, the Bible would be the one that would give them the broadest education on the issues that matter in our lives, even today.

:tab Remember, education should not mean simply an acquisition of factual knowledge. It should also include critical thinking skills. Facts alone do no good if you have no ability to evaluate them. Of course, this gives one pause to consider... If you were running the government and had control of the schools, would you really want your citizens to be towering intellectuals? Would you want them to have the ability to readily comprehend the issues involved in the actions you want to engage in, without having to face the chances of a revolt? Intellegent people are a serious limitation on the exercise of power by those ruling them.

:tab Now where did I leave my tin foil... :wary:

[STScott]

I for one think the government is better equiped to determine what a potential threat is and what is not.

Yeah...right.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/17/Hillsborough/Tourist_s_crime_Totin.shtml

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1761087.php

http://http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/27/war.hero.cnna/ (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/27/war.hero.cnna/)

http://http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/03/tsa_lied_about.html (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/03/tsa_lied_about.html)

http://http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5996897.html (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5996897.html)

http://http://reason.com/sullum/081602.shtml (http://reason.com/sullum/081602.shtml)


http://http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=3100 (http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=3100)

http://http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28551 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28551)

http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12284855/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12284855/)

[Hardertr]

You're right....the press does a pretty good job of pointing out EACH AND EVERY TIME the government messes up.

Wonder how much more effort they put into flaming the govt. than publishing the good stuff?

:yawn:

TOURMEISTER....I'll get back to you on your post. You make me think so much my head hurts. :brainsnap
Chattin' with you is like listenin' to my mom tell me to eat my vegetables.... I know it's good for me, and I know it'll make me bigger and smarter...but sometimes it feels like too much work. You sure do make me re-re-analyze a lot of the stuff I though I knew. THANKS FOR THE WORKOUT! :ponder:

[Tourmeister]

:tab As my Dad was so fond of telling me when I was growing up and having to do things I'd rather have not been doing... "It builds character!" :lol2: If only I knew as much now as I thought I did then... :wary: :doh:

[STScott]

[QUOTE=Hardertr]You're right....the press does a pretty good job of pointing out EACH AND EVERY TIME the government messes up.

Wonder how much more effort they put into flaming the govt. than publishing the good stuff?

QUOTE]

When it comes to the TSA, I have to ask: what good stuff?


Here's another point to ponder....I work for a PD near DFW airport and as such we get applications from TSA security people to become officers on a fairly regular basis. To date, not one has been found to be qualified to be hired.

Makes me feel real good about the quality of the people that are supposedly safeguarding our skies and the quality of the agency that hires those mouthbreathers.

But hey, you keep on drinking the "the TSA knows what it is doing" kool aid. Me, I know better.

[Tourmeister]

But hey, you keep on drinking the "the TSA knows what it is doing" kool aid. Me, I know better.

You had made your point and this really did not contribute to the argument.

[Plane Dr]

I have a gentleman I work with who isn't on the no fly list but close. There is somebody out there whose first name is the same as his middle. So every time he checks in for a flight he gets the same run around. Being a company employee the desk people overide the the DHS flag. It's highly entertaining listening to him after he travels. I love it when he flys on another airline.

Best part is we all have had the FBI background checks, which are redone every so often, and are cleared to ride cockpit during flight. He can't get it changed though.

The logic to it all was obvious awhile ago.

[Larry_77084]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

I don't think the founding fathers envisioned the world we live in today. I think if they had the Bill of Rights may have been a bit different.

[Tourmeister]

:tab The econmic issues we struggle with now are the same as those they struggled with in their time: inflation, trade wars, piracy, mercantilism, and so on. War abroad has always lead to losses of freedom at home and government abuses of power, then and now. If anything, I think perhaps they may have been a bit naive in their belief/hope that those in power would abide by the restrictions placed on that power and not seek at every opportunity to loosen those restrictions and to expand their power via any means available, legal or not. When you set things up so that those in power are the ones that determine whether or not their actions are legitimate under the Constitution... well... guess what :doh: Just as we are seeing now in recent years so starkly, things once held sacred are easily tossed aside. Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about! If one reads our history, it has been one long and continuous drive towards centralization and concentration of power. Even elected leaders in favor of "limited government" have done this. Party affiliation matters not at all, especially in the last 100 years.

[1TallTXn]

just jumping in to applaud Scott.

I agree completly with what you say, and what you say is terribly thought provoking.

Thanks

[Tumper]

A big part of the education was in the home. Recall that the bulk of the people that came to this country were Protestants fleeing state religions in Europe. To the Protestant, being able to read the Bible is important. In many families, if they had no other books, they usually still had a Bible and they read from it.

It is my opinion that Big Government has taken the place of a state religion. In the dark ages the Church did not allow any reading or interpretation of the Bible other than that of the Clergy. They would then "tell" the people what the Bible was saying as opposed to letting them read and understand it for themselves. This same thing seems to be happening today here in the US. People are blissfully ignorant of what the original intent of the central government was, which was not to control the country but to represent the people. States rights were extremely important at that time, and the people would have been in rebellion if the government then was what is has become today. The laws of this country have become so convoluted that the average Joe on the street would have no idea where to begin to understand them. So they rely on their “representatives” in government to “explain” them. Coincidence that these two ‘systems’ are similar? I don’t think so. People are allowed to do just enough to stay contented so there is no real need to rebel. As long as people can put gas in the Hummer, sit in the A/C and have enough food for the whole country to become obese, there will be no major outcry at the loss of freedoms. People have become members of the “First Church of Safety and Security”.
Also because it’s for our own good.;-)
Rant off. Sorry

Disclaimer:
This rant is not intended to impugn any system of religion, only to show the parallels described in Scott’s earlier post describing the education levels of people now versus the olden days, with regard to people's understanding of the purpose of the federal government.;-)

[Tourmeister]

:tab Tumper, the new "religion" is Statism, and really it is not that new, just more widespread now than before. In essence, it is the idea that we can look to government to solve all our problems. The government is unbiased and objective, thus inherently trustworthy. The government protects us from the abuses and failures of the market economy. The government can "manage" the economy and society for the "Good of all". Somehow the government knows what is best for you better than you do :scratch: Best of all, the government is the great defender of Truth, Justice, Freedom, and "The American Way" (whatever that means :roll:). Many people believe this, fervently.

:tab If you are in power, it stands to reason that spreading all the above ideas is to your benefit, to a point. Eventually, the reality of the limits of your power will become apparent. For example, our government has been trying to regulate our economy for over 200 years and yet we still have repeated depressions and recessions. The government tries to impose regulations that then have unintended consequences that just make things worse. Our military has been sent all over the world to spread Democracy and has meet with dismal failure and loss of lives. Our currency continues to depreciate no matter what the Feds try to do to prop it up. Despite several decades of the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and many other "Wars", things have only gotten worse, not better. Yet despite all these failings, people STILL believe in the government. I personally don't think it is because they really and truly believe it can make everything better, but rather, they just don't see any alternative. So they continue to tow the line, suffer the abuse and inefficiency, turn over their wealth at record levels, tolerate more and more curtailing of civil liberties, and more. As you say, so many people are distracted by movies, games, the rat race, and so many other things that few will take the time to educate themselves beyond reading a few articles here and there or maybe a NY Times Best Seller. Let's face it, we are all pressed for time and educating yourself takes time and effort that could be spent doing other things... like riding :rider:

[Greg in H-Town]

Here's an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal that compares the British and U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The article touches on several points in this thread:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008794

[STScott]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/081506dnterrorplot.2138b64.html

Yup...the TSA really knows what it is doing.

[FotoMoto]

Dude, diapers should be changed on at least a weekly basis. 6 months is waaay too long.

He probably got Huggies #5 size rated for 35-50lbs; takes a while to fill those puppies up.:eek2:

What? That isn't what that means?

[Tourmeister]

I feel much safer now with this obvious terrorist and hardened criminal in custody :lol2:

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/9741513/detail.html

[Hemibee]

I feel much safer now with this obvious terrorist and hardened criminal in custody :lol2:

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/9741513/detail.html

Offense like that and she could get the chair........... :nono: please not the nail polish

[Plane Dr]

Here's an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal that compares the British and U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The article touches on several points in this thread:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008794

It glosses over the real meat of the subject. The basic mindset is different. It points out the systems are different but doesn't really communicate it. The differences are very subtle and deep rooted. Take the SSN number. In the US it is not supposed to be required for transactions not involving the Federal Government. Yet the cable company has it, it is the most common identifier you have. It isn't supposed to be, I was told it was illegal here for it to be required as well, ya good luck. In Canada it is ILLEGAL for a business to require it for a transaction it is between you and the government period. When you are solely defined by those numbers what is private?

In many ways the Brits and the Canadian Police/Security have fewer restrictions, but the breadth and levels they go to are very clear. They cannot pass X without very strong and damning evidence. That is controlled by the courts, using laws passed by the legislators.

Whereas with the ones here sneaking around doing who knows what. Do the constitutional restrictions matter? Bush has waved alot of those on "national security" grounds when he felt necesary. But it's okay trust me. Um I don't think so.

The War on this and the War on that kinda erodes both the word and the intent. Erosion is the biggest problem in any situation as it can be very insidious.

[stinky93071]

wow i never thought this would go on this long..

[Tourmeister]

wow i never thought this would go on this long..

:tab I agree... how long will we have to suffer under such nonsense? :-P

:tab It is a good thread though because it touches on a topic that hits very close to home for a great number of people. Travelling was already a headache and hassle. Now it has only gotten worse. Imagine if people going to baseball, football and other public events were treated like the people in airports. I would suspect that those events would soon stop occuring and people would either stay home or find other things to do with their time. The government was supposed to have been in charge of security before 9/11 and look what happened. Does anyone truly believe they will be able to do a better job now? Why not let the airlines worry about their security? After all, it is in their interest to make it safe for people to fly and also to make the security as painless and transparent to the customer as possible. They would certainly be more polite about it and responsive to customer feedback!

[Hairsmith]

:tab I agree... how long will we have to suffer under such nonsense? :-P

Imagine if people going to baseball, football and other public events were treated like the people in airports. I would suspect that those events would soon stop occuring and people would either stay home or find other things to do with their time.

I am not so sure this is true, so many people have given in to the treatment and disrespect by airline security, in the name of safety. That I am not sure sure they are not willing to give in to it in all forms of there lives. I refuse to fly because of being treated as a criminal suspect. But that is not going to affect much since I did not fly before this either. I feel for those that must fly for business.

[Rocket_Cowboy]

I feel for those that must fly for business.

I drive/fly alot more for business now than I used to. The longer the security lines at the airport, the harder it is for me to justify the flight. And with the crazy actions they were taking in the UK (banning all carry-on), they might soon see more international travelers resorting to videoconferencing rather than actually traveling.

[wildebube]

Imagine if people going to baseball, football and other public events were treated like the people in airports. I would suspect that those events would soon stop occuring and people would either stay home or find other things to do with their time.I almost always agree with what you write, but not this one. I believe that people have become so conditioned to this kind of treatment that airport-type security measures would hardly raise an eyebrow. We already have an only slightly watered down version in federal buildings and courts. We have metal detectors and hand searches of personal effects at entrances to amusement parks. We have metal detectors and hand searches of personal effects at entrances to the State Fair. We have metal detectors in schools. I have a good friend who is an FBI agent and was recently transferred to the Detroit area. I haven't seen them in Texas, but he tells me that they have metal detectors in movie theaters up there.

One bomb at a football game and we’ll have airport-like security at stadiums and arenas. It’s coming. And people will thank the government for it. After all, it’s for their own safety.

[Rocket_Cowboy]

Last time I went to an NHL game, we had to pass through metal detectors just like at the airport ... only we didn't have to remove our shoes, but they were checking purses and other bags.

Then again, I hear most hockey games usually start off as boxing matches anyway. :)

[Tourmeister]

:tab The argument of desensitization is quite valid. Afterall, this is how our government has come to be what it is today, little by little, until scarcely anyone questions it. However, even with desensitization, there usually comes a point where people finally snap... usually...

:tab Consider some of the major flops in government performance in just recent years and the untold billions of dollars whisked away to unknown destinations. Look a the fiasco with FEMA in New Orleans. Stuff like this has gone on so long that people seem so immune to it that they still think the solution is to just hand over even more of our money to the government to increase its size and efforts :brainsnap :doh: So maybe you guys are right, and it will just get more and more prevalent :shrug:

[Tourmeister]

:tab I worked in Fed Courthouse in downtown Houston for one of the Judges just after law school. We passed through the detectors and any bags got x-rayed, just like it used to be at the airports. However, no one ever got pulled aside and told to undress, liquids were not banned, etc,... There were cameras everywhere! I never saw one in the bathroom, but... :wary: It is interesting that the judges' benchs are bullet proof. They all have panic buttons under them that will summon beefy federal agents in barely a few heart beats. I got to see that in action a few times. If a crazed gunman entered the courtroom, I knew I was heading under the desk with the Judge :lol2:

:tab Think about all the places though where large groups of people gather: churches, malls, grocery stores, movie theatres, etc,... So far none of these are subject to such intense security measures (that I have seen personally) and yet any would make an excellent target for a terrorist. Why should the government be in charge of airline security but not that of all these places? Not that I want to see that happen! :-P

[Greg in H-Town]

The argument of desensitization is quite valid. Afterall, this is how our government has come to be what it is today, little by little, until scarcely anyone questions it. However, even with desensitization, there usually comes a point where people finally snap... usually...

Ever read the book 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell? It's beginning to look more prophetic every day...

[Tourmeister]

Oh yeah, I have a copy and have read it several times ;-) Same for 1984 and some others.

[brutus]

Actually V for Vendetta was pretty chilling if you haven't seen it.

[Tourmeister]

:tab I have seen several references to that film but have not yet seen it myself. Unfortunately, my list of movies that I would like to have in a personal library is pretty long and I'd quickly go broke if I bought all of them. I really enjoy a lot of the flicks like:

Brazil (director's cut)
1984
Animal Farm
Dr. Strangelove
Wag the Dog

to name a few...

:tab However, I also like stuff that is not necessarily so dark and pessimistic. there is a thread here in the OT section on Favorite moives. It was neat to see the various things people really liked.

[brutus]

I read through that post but I honestly would have a huge number of favorite movies, love watching them. I thought V for Vendetta would be pretty bad but the message was pretty well done and relevant to current events enough to make me think. Unrealistic in many ways but it is a super heroe/villain movie so it is to be expected. Have you ever thought about the whole super hero thing, like what would flying really do to the crime rate? It may sound weird but I have sat and thought, trying to visualize a situation where having a supernatural ability would actually solve something, most super heroes need a counter point in the form of a super villain otherwise they would just be bullies in their own right. Well in this movie I saw a situation where a super hero would practically be needed and it was due to complacency and fear among the people, not unlike what we see in today's world in many aspects. So the movie fullfilled a personal question that although a silly one was something that otherwise I just couldn't imagine. :zen:

[Tourmeister]

Just some of the latest in the effort to protect us...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1138965,00.html

[STScott]

And if he did indeed have a bomb and managed to set it off, everyone would be screaming "why didn't they shoot him!!".

Bad exampl to bolster your argument.

[Tourmeister]

:tab You do make an interesting point about people's after the fact reactions. Do we thus take the "better safe than sorry" attitude all the time, shooting first and asking questions later? If he had set a bomb and was trying to get away (unlike pretty much every terrorist so far that seems to prefer to go up in a blaze of glory), shooting him would have not prevented anything. Given the many non-lethal alternatives that LEO have nowdays for incapacitating people, it would seem that shooting should be a desperate last resort option, particularly on a crowded aircraft! Also, given that the TSA is supposed to be searching everyone and screening them BEFORE they get on the aircraft, shouldn't the agents be able to think there might be some explanation other than, "he has a bomb" before they drop him? I have not done much flying, but even in the few times I have flown, I have personally seen many people get quite agitated about being on an aircraft because of their fear of flying. Should these people now fear being shot if they panic?

:tab I don't want anyone to think I am against making airlines secure. My concern is that what is being done is not really effective and is more for show than anything else. We had all kinds of government provided security before the original 911 hijackings, we can see that worked real well. So are we now to assume that the government has some new found abilities that make them more effective? Might the airlines themselves be more motivated to provide cost effective and truly effective means of securing their aircraft and facilities if allowed to do so by the government?

:tab Here is an interesting take on the airline security issue: Five Years After (http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long17.html)

The crux of the matter to me... and it applies to more than just airlines, indeed, to the entire "war" on terror.
The 9/11 hijackers used sharp objects, so government security starts confiscating nail clippers. A later would-be airline bomber tries to ignite a bomb in his shoe, so passengers have to start taking off their shoes. Some bozoes in Britain may have talked about using airline bombs involving gels, so passengers are relieved of their hairspray and water bottles.

The pattern is clear: each time the terrorists use a new tactic, the government imposes a new restriction on the rest of us, a restriction designed to combat that specific tactic; so the terrorists switch to a different tactic, followed by new restrictions. If the terrorists switch to targeting trains and buses, more restrictions will be imposed on people riding trains and buses – until the terrorists switch to standing on overpasses and dropping bombs on cars as they pass.

By the logic of the situation, government restrictions will always increase. When restriction A makes one tactic more difficult, the terrorists switch to a different tactic, so the government imposes restriction B – but, of course, doesn’t remove restriction A. Given the massive variety of tactics for terrorists to switch among, this process has no natural endpoint short of total government control over every aspect of life.

[STScott]

As someone who has used 40mm bean bag rounds on two people at different points of my career and seen the ZERO effect those had on changing their behaviors (now, when they sobered up and had to deal with the bruises..that was a different story) and having seen multiple people fight through OC, I would be against the FAMs using "less lethal" measures on an airplane where there are negative consequences for a 100 or more people if the "less lethal" doesn't work as soon as applied.

If someone does try to hijack another airplane, their efforts need to be ended quickly and with no doubt of the outcome.

As for screeners checking for explosives....how many times have you seen articles about testers getting things by the screeners?

The guy in the article could have screamed anything he wanted....except "bomb" and he probably would have been tackled and subdued using physical means. Instead he chose to say the magic word and in my opinion greatly reduced the FAMs options on how to respond to his behavior.

Now, you could say that the since the wife was screaming "he was mental problems" that the FAMs should have taken that into account....however, they also have to take into account that she could be an accomplice and is trying to slow their reactions down so that he could accomplish his goal.

Quite frankly, that whole episiode could have been avoided if the guy who was shot had kept up with his meds.

[Rocket_Cowboy]

As a somewhat frequent traveler, I pretty much agree with STScott here. The Federal Air Marshalls are essentially the last line of defense for that plane. If it comes time for them to get involved in an incident, I'm quite ok with them having and threatening lethal force.

I also understand how people can be agitated by fear of flying, airport delays, rude or just plain terrible service while on the plane, etc ... but people also have to understand that once the FAM's get involved, it's time to chill out. That's not to say it's ok for anyone involved in airport security to just open fire on any lunatic coming down the jet way, and for sure these types of incidents must be reviewed and made sure that it's not an abuse of power or a bad shooting, but people need to act correctly in public as well ... and when a law enforcement officer tells you to do something ... it's a good idea to listen.

[Tourmeister]

As for screeners checking for explosives....how many times have you seen articles about testers getting things by the screeners?

:tab I really should follow my own rules :doh: My comment was tongue in cheek sarcasm ;-) I find it ironic that the government wants us to believe that all the screening is making us safer when it seems everyone knows that people are getting stuff by them all the time. Obviously the FAM's have no confidence in the screeners (rightly so ;-) ).

The guy in the article could have screamed anything he wanted....except "bomb" and he probably would have been tackled and subdued using physical means. Instead he chose to say the magic word and in my opinion greatly reduced the FAMs options on how to respond to his behavior.

:tab In the article, the witnesses said they never heard the guy say "bomb". I think that was part of the whole point :shrug: After the fact, the FAM's were trying to get witnesses to say they heard it. Now if he HAD actually said that, then I would be much more inclined to support the choice of shooting first and asking questions later.

:tab Here's a what if... Given the current induced state of fear regarding flying and terrorism. Imagine passenger A overhearing other passengers talking about a bomb. Passenger A freaks out, gets up and runs down the aisle yelling "bomb!" in an attempt to warn people. Stupid? Yes, very. Likely? I think more so than we'd care to admit.

:tab I understand that LEO's often have to make life and death decisions with far less than perfect information. This is a perfect example. That being the case, it seems to me the thing to do is to try to set things up so that they are not in those situations. If the airlines were in charge of their own security, then any arrangment they came up with would be between them, and customers based on a volunutary agreement. Some airlines might advertise the best security in the business, for a premium of course, and others might say good enough, for those willing to pinch pennies if they aren't all that worried about the risk. If it is the airlines and the customers that are dealing with the risks, should they not be the ones to make the determination of what is acceptable and what is not? We do this with many other aspects of our lives: choosing doctors, buying cars, buy motorcycle safety equipment, etc,...

[Rocket_Cowboy]

If the airlines were in charge of their own security, then any arrangment they came up with would be between them, and customers based on a volunutary agreement. Some airlines might advertise the best security in the business, for a premium of course, and others might say good enough, for those willing to pinch pennies if they aren't all that worried about the risk. If it is the airlines and the customers that are dealing with the risks, should they not be the ones to make the determination of what is acceptable and what is not? We do this with many other aspects of our lives: choosing doctors, buying cars, buy motorcycle safety equipment, etc,...

As I recall ... prior to 9/11, there was no federal standard for security screeners. Not exactly the blank check for airlines to implement whatever security measures they wanted, but security was left to private groups hired either by the airline or the airport authority. We saw how well that worked out. Don't get me wrong ... the TSA definitely has it's share of warts, and I definitely don't think they're the perfect solution, but I do agree that there should be some sort of central oversight for all airport security in order to provide ubiquitous and consistent measures. Although, that being said, the TSA being a political entity of government is not exactly ideal either.

As for the possibility of airport security measures being a voluntary choice between the passengers and the airline ... what choice do the people on the ground have? Airport security affects more people than just the people in those planes.

Don't get me wrong ... I'm all for less government and increased individual responsibility (followed up with enforcing that individual responsibility), but until the airline industry puts forward a plan for how it can handle the task of security, with consistent and verifiable enforcement ... someone else has to unfortunately step in.

[Daryl]

EVERYBODY on EVERY plane should be issued a revolver with ONE bullet before boarding........

Think about that one for awhile..............:lol2:

[Fangs]

The Federal Air Marshalls are essentially the last line of defense for that plane.
Pilots are also a last line of defense....a large number carry .40 caliber handguns. The public would be suprized how many carry.

[STScott]

[QUOTE=Tourmeister
:tab In the article, the witnesses said they never heard the guy say "bomb". I think that was part of the whole point :shrug: After the fact, the FAM's were trying to get witnesses to say they heard it. Now if he HAD actually said that, then I would be much more inclined to support the choice of shooting first and asking questions later.
[/QUOTE]

The ONE witness qouted in the story may not have heard it, but the FAMs thought they did....and knowing some FAMs, I know they are not trigger happy goons prone to overreactions. Those are weeded out during their training, which unlike most LE training, is 99% geared toward staying calm and reacting properly in a high stress situation (they don't have to worry about learning to work accidents, make traffic stops, write reports, etc...).

Interesting that only one person was interviewed for the story.....could there be a slant there? (not that anyone in the media has a bias....)

[aggie81]

It took me a while to chase through this thread, but very interesting. As an airline captain, I certainly have a vested interest in the subject. My conclusion? Scott should run for congress. :clap:

[Rocket_Cowboy]

Pilots are also a last line of defense....a large number carry .40 caliber handguns. The public would be suprized how many carry.

And God bless 'em ... I absolutely support them carrying, but then again, it would by hypocritical of me if I didn't.

I've got a number of friends who are or have been commercial pilots.

[Tourmeister]

Teeth, I thought the FAA prohibited pilots from carrying on board? When did that change? I am all for that!

STScott, I do not think FAM's are goons ;-)

RC, regarding the airlines doing security, they have absolutely no incentive to provide it right now. Think about it. They don't have to pay for the TSA (directly) and if something is screwed up, they can claim it is not their fault since it is the TSA that is responsible. Sounds like a sweet deal for them :shrug:

The TSA thing has broad implications though. I mean here we have a fairly tight and controlled environment that they are responsible for securing to protect us and they are doing a pretty poor job. If the government is doing such a poor job here, how can they possibly pretend to offer realistic protection from terrorists everywhere else where they don't have such a high degree of control? For that matter, do we really even want them to have that degree of control...?

[Fangs]

Teeth, I thought the FAA prohibited pilots from carrying on board? When did that change? I am all for that!
About 4 years ago the Federal Flight Deck Officer program was created. It's voluntary.

Pilots must attend the FBI academy located Artesia NM and pass a psyc and background check before they can carry.

[Tourmeister]

Pilots must attend the FBI academy located Artesia NM and past a psyc and background check before they can carry.

I find that hilarious. Gotta have a psych test to carry but not to fly the plane into the ground... :doh:

[Fangs]

I find that hilarious. Gotta have a psych test to carry but not to fly the plane into the ground... :doh:
Guess what agency oversees all this fun.....yup you guessed it....TSA.

[Rocket_Cowboy]

RC, regarding the airlines doing security, they have absolutely no incentive to provide it right now. Think about it. They don't have to pay for the TSA (directly) and if something is screwed up, they can claim it is not their fault since it is the TSA that is responsible. Sounds like a sweet deal for them :shrug:

That was kind of the point ... security wasn't at all consistent when it was in the hands of the airlines/airports, so I'm not real motivated to give them a second chance.

As bad as the TSA is ... there hasn't been another terrorist attack on a US based flight. Perhaps a meaningless stat without other facts and figures to back up any events that they've spoiled ... but it's something. :shrug:

[Tourmeister]

I feel safer already...

TSA in action! (http://www.nowpublic.com/nightmare_at_reagan_national_airport_a_security_st ory_to_end_all_security_stories)

[jhansen]

TSA--Terminally Stupid ********! Just what were these people thinking? Like the comments said after the story, time for another tea party.
Oh yeah and this..just another reason to ride my motorcycle when I want to go someplace and I work for COA!

[Sleepy Weasel]

I feel safer already...

TSA in action! (http://www.nowpublic.com/nightmare_at_reagan_national_airport_a_security_st ory_to_end_all_security_stories)

Does anybody else think it's weird that this doesn't appear to be on any of the "major" news sites? I mean, this is supposed to have happened Monday... how am I getting no hits for ABC, NBC, CNN, or any of a thousand newspapers when I run her name?

[STScott]

...also....how does one "accidently" spill 2 or three ounces of water from a sippy cup? You pretty much have to turn it over (yes, I know the top was off...but that little amount of water is gonna be near the bottom of the cup).

I still have a very low opinion of the people hired by TSA to grope me and steal things from my luggage.....but I think the "victim" in this story was not completely innocent.

[SL350]

When Ronald Reagan stared down the flight controllers union, I sat on the tarmack at JFK for 8 hours for no reason. Most, not some, flights had similar delays.

Joke is that the security procedures today do not make you safe, they are CYA procedures for the airport. Real security comes from good intelligence.

So next time you gotta wait because someone accidentially carried a bottle of water through the line, just laugh it off.

[Tourmeister]

Does anybody else think it's weird that this doesn't appear to be on any of the "major" news sites? I mean, this is supposed to have happened Monday... how am I getting no hits for ABC, NBC, CNN, or any of a thousand newspapers when I run her name?

:tab That does not surprise me in the least. I regularly read news stories on other sources that won't show up in the mainstream stuff. Without a doubt they engage in editorial censoring. They have to. They simply cannot report everything that happens. So they pick and choose.

...also....how does one "accidently" spill 2 or three ounces of water from a sippy cup? You pretty much have to turn it over (yes, I know the top was off...but that little amount of water is gonna be near the bottom of the cup).

:tab Actually, I can totally see how she would easily spill water from the cup. Nervous. Hands full of luggage. Trying to manage a kid. The water is only on the bottom if you are not trying to drink it ;-) Given that she was already getting this much hassle, I find it hard to believe someone like her (former Secret Service) would be stupid enough to spill on purpose :shrug:

I still have a very low opinion of the people hired by TSA to grope me and steal things from my luggage.....but I think the "victim" in this story was not completely innocent.

:tab Regarding her being "completely innocent," I would suspect that she probably got visibly annoyed, just like any reasonable person would when the TSA makes such a big deal about something so obviously trivial. She is worried about missing her flight. Her husband is already through and she is stuck behind with the kid. The story fits exactly what I have seen from people in those types of jobs. THEY have the power. YOU must genuflect properly or they are offended. It does not matter if you have done anything wrong per the letter of the law. It is more a question of you not having the proper deferential attitude regardless of their attitude. Worst of all, they are easily offended as they perceive the slightest thing to be an intentional insult or act of disrespect. The article even said they admonished her for failing to show proper respect. In her place, I would probably have been arrested for failing to lick their boots... :doh:

:tab It is because of the TSA that I will not fly if given the choice.

[STScott]

I find it hard to believe someone like her (former Secret Service) would be stupid enough to spill on purpose :shrug:

You would be surprised what people can/will do when irritated.

edited to add:

I am in no way defending the TSA....I am also very sure (based on my experiences with them) that they did overreact to the situation and helped to make it much worse than it could have been.

[Hairsmith]

:tab It is because of the TSA that I will not fly if given the choice.


And I have that choice!
Besides, I would rather ride:rider:

[Greg in H-Town]

One of the several bad things about the Homeland Security act that these incompetent meatheads were made federal employees. They used to be privately employed by the airlines and if need be they could be sent back to work security at WallyWorld where they came from.

[The Big Spank Daddy]

I do not fly as often as I did around the 911 time frame. For me it takes one hour to get to the airport, I get there 1 to 2 hours early anticipating long security lines, that I have yet to see, just lucky I suppose. Then I have the 1 to 2 hour flight, then the half to full hour wait to get my bag(s) then another half to full hour it takes to get my rental car. By now I figure I have spent 4 to 5 hours flying somewhere that I could have driven to in the same amount of time and for less money.

Right now my rule of thumb is that anything within a 300 mile radius of Houston I'll drive instead of fly. As for flying I go bare minimum, keys, wallet, and cell phone, easily slipped on tennis shoes, shorts and a T-shirt. As for baggage, whenever possible I box it up and ship it UPS or Fedex next day air early AM to my destination. No waiting, its there waiting on me.

Often when I'm at the airport checking out the hot babes, I wonder if they could be terrorist and in need of a thorough search:trust: Laugh, but there are those sickos working for the TSA that think just that. Really though, I do sit and think, what would I do if..............

I scan the terminal looking at people and profile them. Racist, ABSOLUTELY NOT! It is just a matter of knowing who and where my enemies are. I value my life and the other innocent lives around me, regardless of age, sex, race, creed or religion. I assure you I'm no hero, but that paper clip, plastic fork, nail clipper, sippy cup armed *** ain't getting past my aisle anywhere near that cockpit.

Over blown (yes a pun) media exposure? You bet, the media has done the best job inciting fear and panic in the public than any terrorist. Just look at the Rita evacuation. The media is the terrorist's best friend. I have no hard facts, but I'm certain there are many plots thwarted by competent government employees that we never hear about.

Fed up with long lines and hassles at the airports, quit flying! Tired of high gas prices, quit driving! Don't like the government, do something like voting!

I'll leave with one bit of proof that terrorist are truly stupid. What is the number one thing that you use everyday and that Americans complain about the most? Gasoline! Ever been to a refinery? Basically, there is no security that would prevent a terrorist from blowing it up. What security is there at gas terminals where tanker trucks fill up? There is no security what so ever or ineffective security out in the middle of no where on the gas pipe lines, power transmission lines, etc.

[Tracker]

Just read the whole thread. random thoughts.

Given Big Spank Daddy's link, he definitely should not be TSA.
:lol2:
Why not give people the option of swigging a big swallow of their bottled beverage that they want to carry on? I can't think of any "bad" liquid I'd be willing to swill if I had ill intent.

We've had some pretty messy situations in our country's past where the government overstepped its Constitutional bounds. Lincoln's martial law comes to mind. Unfortunately today, I think we're creep mode sliding downhill and we're already in trouble and don't know it.

[STScott]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070616/ap_on_re_us/airport_sippy_cup_2;_ylt=AgDRD5WPka7283BuO24PSp4G1 vAI



ETA:

After watching the video I would have to say that the "Secret Service" agent brought this all upon herself.....I have no clue how she could claim she "accidently" spilled the contents of the sippy cup.

[Fangs]

After watching the video I would have to say that the "Secret Service" agent brought this all upon herself.....I have no clue how she could claim she "accidently" spilled the contents of the sippy cup.This does not suprize me...All professions, including the Secret Service have people who are less than professional for a lot of reasons (not perfect all the time) or are the small percentage that get into trouble on a regular basis.

I think it is funny when people tell me that a person is a (name your profession) when they get into trouble they may play a part in, as if that (their education or profession) somehow makes their heart and character of the highest caliber :lol2: I am a big believer in " laws of probability".

[Tourmeister]

Good find Scott!

:tab I would really have liked to see what happened before she got to the point where she dumped the water, and I would REALLY like to hear some audio. In her story, it was said that she was given no option of drinking it. So for her to keep the cup and have it empty, which the guy following her was obviously still worried about when it looked like he was trying to grab it from her, what else could she do? I would imagine by that point she was already pretty upset, not that it excuses her dumping it on the floor. From that point on though, I saw nothing serious :shrug: Yes, she was visibly agitated, but who wouldn't be. From there, it looks to me like the TSA people are just out to make a point regarding their ability to detain her and make her do what they want, which she did. I almost died laughing when the guy in the foreground was pointing out all the places she missed while wiping! Then there is the guy grabbing the kid. I am sorry, but unless I give permission (which she may have but without audio who knows?), you had better not lay a finger on my kids. Imagine how they would react if I told them to keep their hands off my kid!

:tab Frankly, I think this was a mountain out of a molehill thing. The TSA should have let her drink the water or provided a place to pour it out, that simple. That would have taken what? A minute or so? Instead the have taken a situation where people are already in a hurry and stressed, and they have just added to it. So her options are to kowtow to their every unreasonable whim or what? Rather than helping to create a less stressful environment, it seems to me the TSA does the opposite and just provides fertile ground for things like this to happen. Then when people react to it, they are in trouble for not being deferential enough :roll: My personal experiences with those kinds of folks is that they seem more concerned with you being deferential to their satisfaction than with any actual offense... That is just a recipe for trouble... :doh:

Spankdaddy... thank GOD you don't work for the TSA! :lol2:

[STScott]

The only thing I can add is that the female had to have known about the prohibition against bringing liquids (as stupid as it is) seeing how well it has been advertised and was only bringing trouble on herself.

Yes, the TSA should provide a place for those too stupid to read/know about the warnings to dump their "contraband" but people should also know not to bring those things in the line.

[The Big Spank Daddy]

I tried to get a job with the TSA, but failed the background check. Something along the lines of being spineless/no backbone..........ohhhhhhhh so that's what a "squid" is:rofl:

[Texas T]

if need be they could be sent back to work security at WallyWorld where they came from. Be careful with your assumptions; I hire a better class of worker than that. I doubt that very many TSA employees (at least the ones I've observed) would make it past my screening/interviewing process.

[Tourmeister]

Be careful with your assumptions; I hire a better class of worker than that. I doubt that very many TSA employees (at least the ones I've observed) would make it past my screening/interviewing process.

And this is because you have a LOT to lose if you hire poor quality people! The TSA does not have that minor inconvenience ;-)

[sherob]

I took my oldest to Hobby to fly up to DC last week. I stood in the cattle line with her since she has never flown by herself before and was drinking a bottle of water. There were signs everywhere stating what is or isn't allowed thru the xray machines... there were trash cans everywhere to dispose of these items, which I threw my empty bottle of water. Once we got to the ticket/id checking crew, I explained why I was there and they allowed me to pass thru a barrier back out to the waiting area.

This was all done with courtesy, smiles, and "Have a great day." Just like when you are pulled over by a LEO, courtesy goes a long way... attitude, no matter how upset you may be just makes things worse :trust:

[Tourmeister]

This should be interesting...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Travel/BeSeenBeHeard/story?id=3289765

I wonder if they are looking for content for something like 20/20? Things could get really ugly for the TSA. Even they don't always know when someone is watching them ;-)

[STScott]

http://www.komotv.com/news/archive/4153866.html

[Tourmeister]

"I'm sorry Mam, I must blindly follow the rules..."

It will only get worse before it gets better... assuming it ever gets better :doh:

[pacman]

"I'm sorry Mam, I must blindly follow the rules..."

It will only get worse before it gets better... assuming it ever gets better :doh:


You got that right, Scott. When even the public servants we elect to bring change betray us, what recourse do we have left? At some point revolution becomes the only option.

[Greg in H-Town]

You got that right, Scott. When even the public servants we elect to bring change betray us, what recourse do we have left? At some point revolution becomes the only option.
Somewhere some Homeland Security stooge just wrote your name down.

'May we see your papers, Mr. Pacman?' :wary:

[STScott]

Keeping us safe from malignant 8 year olds everywhere!!!

8-Year-Old Boy Held From Plane for Appearing on No-Fly List
Saturday , July 14, 2007



ADVERTISEMENT
An 8-year-old boy expecting to catch a plane home is denied entry for appearing on a terrorist no-fly list, reported MyFoxKansasCity.com.

Bryan Moore was set to catch his first plane trip when he arrived at an airport in Cortez, Colorado to fly home after visiting his sister, said the report.

"They almost got me scheduled in and then the lady just bowed her head and said, 'We can't get you on this plane, you're a terrorist,'" Moore said.

Click here for full story from MyFoxKansasCity.com.

The soon-to-be third grader was red flagged as a threat to national security because his name popped up on the national watch list.

According to the Transportation Security Administration, no children are on the terrorist watch list. The TSA said if a child's name matches up, it's up the airline to make the necessary changes and let them board the plane.

"It's not really fair that I couldn't get home because another man in the world was a terrorist," Moore said.

Great Lake Airlines eventually cleared up the situation, but the plane had already left, making him wait another day to come home.

[ulric]

"As I recall ... prior to 9/11, there was no federal standard for security screeners. Not exactly the blank check for airlines to implement whatever security measures they wanted, but security was left to private groups hired either by the airline or the airport authority. We saw how well that worked out. Don't get me wrong ... the TSA definitely has it's share of warts, and I definitely don't think they're the perfect solution, but I do agree that there should be some sort of central oversight for all airport security in order to provide ubiquitous and consistent measures. Although, that being said, the TSA being a political entity of government is not exactly ideal either."

I worked as a 'screener' for approx 1.5-2 years... I haven't flown after the 9/11 changes, but honestly can't say that things changed THAT much.

In houston, prior to 911.. a 'screener' was paid 10 cents over minimum wage. Their 'training'/'testing' consisted of watching a 'video' and trying to 'catch' items in the movie of the xrays... (along with pat downs etc).
The airport would frequently 'pack' a test item under/in someones stuff going on the belt (and Terminal C, IAH only had 3 items they used)... visually is was an oval, or squarish 'block' wrapped in red 'security' tape. They used a toy cap gun, wind up clock and some 'flares'.

Now IF a screener caught a legit violation...they recieved $25 bonus. If they missed a 'test' item etc, then they were suspended and had to 're-test'.
Often, they were stuck working double shifts...many times then having to come back to work within 8 hours.

[sherob]

I flew yesterday for the first time in approx 18 years... my rant is the idiots not listening/paying attention to what they are being told!

From the time you enter the screening area up to the Xray area, you are told what can and can't be carried with you... what has to put in a ziplock bag... they are even handing out bags! You have to remove your shoes... your jacket... laptops removed from bags and placed in a seperate bin... yada yada yada.

My first time going thru this... no prob... listened... followed the rules... went thru no problems.

I watched people try and go thru with shoes on... change in their pockets, "you mean it'll set off the detector?"... jackets on... items not in baggies... and guess what happened to these people? They got to go thru additional screening.

If they would stop talking on their phone, listening to their IPOD and take a few minutes to pay attention, they would breeze right thru like me.

[ericlw]

last time i flew.


personally i dont mind anyone wanting to search my bag.


go right ahead.after 4 days in vegas and walking around and getting sweaty.and intentionally packing my underwear ontop of everything.i hope those people know how to hold their nose when they open that sucker.

they wanted to search my bag.being a rather large feller she should have known better.let me tell you when that lady opened it up their must have been a green cloud come out of my bag.she closed it up and said everything is fine.lol.

[Fz1pilot1]

Hardertr.................."The only way to fly" :rofl:

[stinky93071]

Ok so because I am sitting in the airport today I have to bring this one back..

So if you get a chance to fly around 9/11 I would strongly tell you not to.. Not sure why but they are checking addresses on tickets to the ID. now thats dosn't sound that bad but there is one guy (about 80) that can not see doing this.. talk about a long time in line.. I was also flagged as "watch list" so i had to go to the counter with one woman that had no vice dealing with the "others"

Now if I could just get that chick southwest would not let on that flight it to get the seat next to me it could make things a little better.. might make up for the 3hrs to get to the gate.. oh.. 20 mins late on boarding due to plane on the other side of the air port.. joy joy joy

[DFW_Warrior]

Baby...... Rub some dirt on it and walk it off....:lol2:

[Sleepy Weasel]

go right ahead.after 4 days in vegas and walking around and getting sweaty.and intentionally packing my underwear ontop of everything.i hope those people know how to hold their nose when they open that sucker.

they wanted to search my bag.being a rather large feller she should have known better.let me tell you when that lady opened it up their must have been a green cloud come out of my bag.she closed it up and said everything is fine.lol.

Funny, I remember my high school German teacher talking about doing the same thing, bumming around europe when he was 19. All his stuff was in a big army duffel, and he confesses that he and his friends packed their underwear on top to discourage border searches that might have turned up anything "questionable."

[Greg in H-Town]

I was also flagged as "watch list" [...]

With a name like 'Stinky', what do you expect? :lol2:

[dixonduke]

Not to rub it in... well a little maybe.

I will be enjoying none of the security lines and hordes of travelers while riding in this.

Gulfstream G4
http://www.hifly.it/images/GulfstreamG4.jpg

Next week we are holding meetings in our (Mon)California, (Tues)Colorado, (Wed)Wyoming & (Thurs)North Dakota offices and are lucky enough to convence the corporate CFO to release the jet for us underlings.