November 19, 2010

How about a little empathy for the people who work for the TSA?

How would you like it if your job suddenly changed to requiring you to feel people up all day long? And everyone started to hate you? And it seemed as though maybe you could be accused of committing crimes — thousands of crimes — including the molestation of children?

Well, how would you like it?
I'd hate it, and I would sacrifice my livelihood and quit.
I'd hate it, but I wouldn't quit because these are hard times and you don't walk away from a job.
I'd bring my mind into alignment with the government mission and soldier on.
I'd find a way to see the work as challenging and fun and do it with energy and good cheer.
I'd get a sexual thrill from the power trip of feeling up people who are compelled to submit.
  
pollcode.com free polls

111 comments:

Scott M said...

Yep. I'd be gone. Most people are deathly afraid of being fired or loosing their jobs. Having worked in radio for a good deal of my adult life, I know it's not the end of the world.

AllenS said...

I'm a Viet Nam vet. I got used to people hating my fucking guts.

Famous Original Mike said...

"I'd get a sexual thrill from the power trip of feeling up people who are compelled to submit."

Haha. Is that wrong?

achmafooma said...

I would quit. Or, at least, I would refuse to feel people up until I got fired.

Two reasons (not presented in any particular order of importance):

1) As a [hypothetical] TSA employee and federal worker, I'd have sworn an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. These searches are an obvious violation of the 4th Amendment. I am not willing to violate a solemn oath.

2) As a Catholic, it would be morally unacceptable for me to violate the dignity and sanctity of peoples' bodies without a good reason (e.g., as a doctor, or as part of a LEGITIMATE AND NECESSARY security screening). Random scans/feel-ups are not legitimate and necessary. Thus, they present a serious moral problem and (I believe) a mortal sin.

Original Mike said...

I have a lot of empathy for them. I sure as hell wouldn't want that job.

Coketown said...

They should hire the most sultry, busty, devastatingly gorgeous women, or the most debonair, handsome, ripped men, to do the molesting--sorry, pat-downs. And airport patrons should get to pick who does it. They could have a whole selection matrix: I'll take the white, dark haired, muscular man with the British, no, Australian accent to pat me down.

Oh my God, why aren't I the head of the TSA? Why did Janet let this totally avoidable situation spiral into chaos?

traditionalguy said...

So what about Saint Sarah? She often flies economy commercial. The best way to humiliate her would probably used to the limit, wherever that ends up. She will likely grin and bear it. But What will the Grizzlie in her do when Willow and Piper are attacked next while she watches? The TSA guys are likely to enjoy this, like every little Eichmann does. Remember, line to the showers were also mandatory at Auschwitz as the lines there were sent through by smiling guys "just following orders".

garage mahal said...

At this poinT, you almost have to be a peRvert to fly. There is An alternatIve to this invasioN of privacy rightS however!.

Paul Zrimsek said...

"It's not like anyone else is standing in line to examine me." -- Kaylee Frye

DKWalser said...

Assuming I thought the measure was necessary for security purposes (something I don't accept at this point), I'd try to perform the task with "good cheer". I don't think my doctor particularly enjoys performing some parts of my annual exam, but he tries to conduct the exam in a manner that is as emotionally comfortable as possible for both of us. I don't see why, in theory, it shouldn't be possible for a TSA employee to do the same.

Titus said...

Definitely major thrill.

I say feel more tits NOW

Original Mike said...

Cute.

BarryD said...

BTW what's with the name "Janet" anyway? Is it Latin for "raping your civil liberties" or something?

Gabriel Hanna said...

@garagemahal:

TRAINS

Which cost as much as a plane and take four times as long, not to mention have limited availability outside the Northeast, as we have Discussed ad nauseum, and in Real like they Inevitably will haVe the samE level of intrusive security once some terrorist shows up on a high speed train.

MayBee said...

I have to admit that the last time I was subjected to a pat-down, I kinda suspected the male TSA agent who directed it just wanted to see the female agent touch me like that.

Shanna said...

What about staying at work and refusing to do it? Or, when doing pat downs, refusing to do the extra stuff? Fight it to the end, rather than quit. You can do more from the inside...Make them fire you for refusing to feel up the passengers!

shoutingthomas said...

Please identify yourself if you are one of the perverts who decided on option #5.

If you're female, pretty and you chose option #5, please leave a telephone number.

Shanna said...

"At this poinT, you almost have to be a peRvert to fly. There is An alternatIve to this invasioN of privacy rightS however!."

Heh @ garage.

Ann Althouse said...

"What about staying at work and refusing to do it?"

You will be fired. I didn't think of that option, but if that's your choice vote along with the quitters.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

I'd have more empathy for these pedophiles if they weren't enjoying fondling my 10-year-old daughter's vagina so much.

Fucking bunch of perverts we have for a government.

bearing said...

I'm really glad to see achmafooma's comment. I am also a Catholic and I agree. This is the first time I've seen someone make the point that this kind of search violates human dignity in an expressly immoral way.

Yeah, if there's a proportionate reason (medical exams, reasonable police searches of suspects, actual emergencies) then forcing people to undergo nude exams or forcing people to submit to someone stroking their breasts, buttocks, penises and vulvas may be reluctantly justified -- reluctant because even with justification, we have to acknowledge that the exams and the forced touching are objectively harmful.

There is no proportionate reason to do so to people who are overwhelmingly likely to be innocent.

I suspect that it is seriously damaging to the TSA screeners themselves. They cannot help but become desensitized to the humanity of the passengers under these circumstances. Not only would I resign if it were my job -- I won't be a paid sexual-abuser -- I would call on all Catholic TSA screeners to refuse to perform these demeaning tasks.

Wish we could get some of the bishops to weigh in on this one.

Moose said...

Sorry - there are always jobs at the local animal shelter euthanizing kittens. They can find other jobs.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@the topic (for once):

Every job sucks in some way. Anyone who has worked in customer service knows what it's like to have to deal with people who hate you or look down on you.

If TSA employees can't handle it, they can quit and get a real job.

madawaskan said...

At certain times don't women always have a package in their shorts, or something crammed up their yah who?

[I'm probably going to delete tyhis later,yoick!]

madawaskan said...

What the hell are they going to do about that?

Or get around that?

Or investigate-gawd!

TRO said...

About as popular as any public employee these days.

Easy to say quit when it's someone else, but doubt many would just throw a job away in this economy.

"1) As a [hypothetical] TSA employee and federal worker, I'd have sworn an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. These searches are an obvious violation of the 4th Amendment. I am not willing to violate a solemn oath."

Are they? Reasonable people are disagreeing on this. I've sworn that oath three times and I don't neccessarily think they are a violation. I do, however, think they are a big waste of time and don't do a thing to improve security.

"2) As a Catholic, it would be morally unacceptable for me to violate the dignity and sanctity of peoples' bodies without a good reason (e.g., as a doctor, or as part of a LEGITIMATE AND NECESSARY security screening). Random scans/feel-ups are not legitimate and necessary. Thus, they present a serious moral problem and (I believe) a mortal sin."

Twelve years of Catholic school, makes me think you need to take some adult CCD classes. No way this is a mortal sin.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

TRO said...

"I'd have more empathy for these pedophiles if they weren't enjoying fondling my 10-year-old daughter's vagina so much."

Curious as to why you think they are enjoying this? Or even a significant number of them. Or even an insignificant number.

Saying that, without any proof at all, is like saying all soldiers enjoy killing people. It's just stupid and doesn't add anything positive to the discussion.

That said, the searches should be stopped and interview-based behavior profiling should be instituted. Immediately.

Original Mike said...

"I suspect that it is seriously damaging to the TSA screeners themselves. They cannot help but become desensitized to the humanity of the passengers under these circumstances."

Interesting point.

Titus said...

Can I tell you I have been listening to NPR out in Madison and your hosts are awful.

Kathleen Dunn and Jean Feraca- they are bad.

The ones in Boston are fierce and really bitchy.

edutcher said...

Hey, wasn't there a porno star that wanted to run for Senate in Louisiana?

Have her round up all her co-workers (I hear the porno biz is going down the tubes, thanks to everybody sexting themselves)and put them to work doing it. (no pun)

In many cases, working for the government is another form of welfare; in some others, it's where you go to sit out a recession. The Blonde had to go to the local EPA office to have a form filled out and 4 people were over in a corner having coffee while only one served a long line.

Herself said, in a distinct and carrying voice, to the woman next to her, "Why aren't THOSE people helping us?". Needless to say, several drifted over to do a little work.

Government sinecure backed by union rules. I can't summon a lot of sympathy.

TRO said...

"I suspect that it is seriously damaging to the TSA screeners themselves. They cannot help but become desensitized to the humanity of the passengers under these circumstances."

Agreed. Many of them may not be the brightest or the best educated, but that doesn't mean they aren't human.

Shanna said...

You will be fired. I didn't think of that option, but if that's your choice vote along with the quitters

a. you might not get fired if you are sneaky enough about it and

b. at least you would get unemployment/severance pay!

Plus, you could make a big deal, go on television and bitch about it, etc...

I actually voted that I would stay because jobs are scarce, but I think this sort of civil disobedience would be better. If all the agents did it, it could work.

Marshal said...

When they had to fondle and smell feet I had some empathy. Not anymore.

Cedarford said...

If I was TSA and actually cared about by job, I would not like having my work and reputation ruined by making me an unwilling groper and participant in "security theater" aimed to enrich Beltway Bandit security machine peddlars and well-connected former officials.

Remember TSA lacks a union, so there is no safe firewall membership can speak out behind like the Pilots Association....which hates pilots being treated like potential terrorists. I understand why it makes some sense to oppose unions for those engaged in "vital security work" that are subject to redeployment and transfer and whose job duties may shift with the "evildoer threat du jour" -- but lack of a union forces TSA workers to shut up publicly about the situation.

If I couldn't quit, it would be quite nice working to sabotage the process from within. Since I had no official vehicle like a union to represent my sentiments so - and resigning would simply open my spot for another person whose job was outsourced to China, (courtesy of the same Ruling Elites pushing the grope and body scan on the rabble. Those who do not travel in private, corporate, or government jets that bypass the scan and grope process.)
Write your Congress Reps, saying you fear for your job and wish to remain anonymous as a whistleblower ---but----detectors are a giant scam, you feel like a criminal fondling the privates ogf people you know are no threat whatsoever of being an Islamoid terrorist.
Send a few phone call inquiries out to the law firms of "Rozenkranz and Guildenstern, ESq." etc...types. Ambulance chasers and class action lawsuit specialists. Note that it is legal for them to hire some black kids in any city displaced by illegal aliens and have them show up at airport arrival areas with big signs "Been Groped? Privacy invaded? Kids fondled?" handing out cards steering flyers to the distinguished law firm that will get rich while they get pennies.

Have friends you have made at airports in other jobs "spread the word" that they hear Muslim women are being considered for exemption of "scan and grope" because of religious convictions and fear that groping Muslims will only "encourage radicalism". That will sit real well with a family from Beloit off visiting granma and granpa on the Holidays.

bearing said...

Re: whether a Catholic TSA screener is committing mortal sin. No, probably not, because (we assume) they would be doing it not for the express purpose of violating people's human dignity, but because it was their job to search people. Violating people's human dignity is a secondary effect, hopefully an unintended one. So while there may be guilt incurred, it's probablt mitigated and not mortal, only venial.

Unless (and it sounds like I'm making a joke, but I'm utterly serious) they find themselves enjoying it. Either finding the feelups/nudie scans sexually titillating, or finding themselves enjoying the rush of using their power to humiliate people. Both are big fat "your soul is in danger" red flags.

I still think that Catholic TSA screeners should refuse to participate in these indignities. And I'm wondering what the Muslim and conservative-evangelical-Christian screeners are thinking about these regulations, too.

Fprawl said...

The problem is, last year a Bull Female TSA person at SDF yelled at my 68 year old cane toting mother to "get through the scanner, go FASTER, MOVE. Get BACK sir, you can't help her."
This mentality has ingrained itself into the job where you get to harass people who think they are better than you. Harass them A LOT.
Making this a Federal Govt. Position was a big mistake. If I were TSA, I'd rationalize all of it.
Remember 'The Big Chill' line.

Gene said...

Wish we could get some of the bishops to weigh in on this one.

Bearing, that's a great point. Where is the Catholic Church on this issue? You would think after the pedophile priest debacle they would be out ahead of the curve on this one.

At least some of our politicians are speaking out. Ron Paul's speech on the house floor on this issue was unbelievably great. I loved it that he didn't just blame the TSA for pulling this, he blamed the American public for silently tolerating it (at least up till now).

Trooper York said...

Hey it didn't work with Hogan's Hero's and it won't work with the TSA.

You can't feel sorry for Nazi's.

Titus said...

"A Bull Female" that is hilarious.

Titus said...

But Hogan was a fudgie Troop, or so they say.

Trooper York said...

Nah he was like Bernie Williams.

Original Mike said...

You can't feel sorry for Nazi's

Schultz wasn't a Nazi.

Geoff Matthews said...

So, when does the first TSA-themed porn movie come out?
You know it's only a matter of time.

achmafooma said...

TRO said, "Twelve years of Catholic school, makes me think you need to take some adult CCD classes. No way this is a mortal sin."

I read the link you posted...and have paid very close attention in my Catholic education (I came-in through RCIA two years ago, not through CCD). I have been studying the Catechism since before my reception into the church, and am currently reading the Summa Theologica).

None of this, least of all the link you posted, supports your case.

Perhaps some TSA agents commit the acts without full knowledge of its sinfulness, so for them it would not be mortal. In my case, having full knowledge and knowing that feeling-up innocent people for no reason is grave matter, if I consent to doing it (by not refusing or quitting) I have met all three criteria for mortal sin.

I appreciate you posting the link though, so others can read-up on what constitutes mortal sin.

Gene said...

Remember, ... the showers were also mandatory at Auschwitz [and the guards were] ... "just following orders". -- Traditional Guy

Well said. I am always astounded when people try to defend their bad behavior by claiming they were just doing their jobs.

Workers aren't required to do terrible things to other people. The workers can protest, refuse to do it, file a complaint, call in sick, request a transfer or quit the job. There is no requirement that you embarrass yourself or humiliate other people in order to earn a living.

I also wish some politician would request that anyone with a cell phone camera or video camera take it out and photograph all abusive behavior by TSA officials. Church leaders should do this too. I'd finally like to see some respected black leaders say this too (government officials are so terrified of contradicting black leaders).

LoafingOaf said...

I'd like to know what is really going on and is not being told to the people. They keep increasing all this security despite all the backlash it's getting from the public, so does that mean that they think an attack is imminent? If not, why are we playing into terrorists' hands by ruining our air travel industry? And when the terrorists make the security lines so extreme no one can get anything through, they can still blow up bombs right before where people pass thru security. But are there people in the government panicking because they know an attack is about to hit us?

Bender said...

A little empathy? A little sympathy?

Not too much, really.

The problem is that, of the various TSA people I've heard commenting on this, every single one has sought to justify this.

And then, to add insult to injury, with all their bureaucratic obnoxiousness, they have gone on to, "if you don't like it, then don't fly" -- in other words, "too f***ing bad, take it or leave it, we're going to do whatever the hell we want because we have the power and you can go eat s***."

If any of them would say, "yes, you're right, this is over-the-line and wrong," then I might start to sympathize with them, but they have all been power-mad jerks about it.

By the way, when I flew last month, I ended up in the line for these body scanners. It ended up taking about four times as long to get through since they made you take everything out of your pockets, take off your belt, open up your wallet, and stand in the machine for much longer than it takes to walk through a metal detector. And, of course, most people did not initially do all of that, so they had to step out and do it again, etc. What was a five-minute process for the metal detector line ended up being about 15-20 minutes for us.

MadisonMan said...

achmafooma, I don't know if I've seen your posts here before -- I don't recognize the moniker -- but I appreciate your point of view and I hope you come back and post more.

Bender said...

Come on, achmafooma, you know you ain't getting nowhere with that argument.

Now, if you were a Muslim woman who worked for TSA and had objections to looking at body scans and patting people down, I'm sure they would bend over backwards and forwards to accomodate you.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Curious as to why you think they are enjoying (rubbing 10-year-old vaginas)?"

The TSA agent who violated my 10-year-old daughter was smiling as he rubbed her vagina to see if she was a Muslim terrorist.

I'm pretty sure he was getting his rocks off and I'm fairly certain that's the entire point of it.

Molesting her had nothing whatsoever to do with al Queda. al Queda is not in my daughter's panties. My government molesting her only HELPS al Queda.

Which is, I think, in the final analysis, the goal of Democrats: They can't win at the polls, so they want to secure this 'get' for their side.

So they're physically molesting our children in the name of "security."

TRO said...

"Perhaps some TSA agents commit the acts without full knowledge of its sinfulness, so for them it would not be mortal. In my case, having full knowledge and knowing that feeling-up innocent people for no reason is grave matter, if I consent to doing it (by not refusing or quitting) I have met all three criteria for mortal sin."

Ugh, nothing worse than a convert. (My wife's one so I know this as fact.)

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion but I don't see this as a mortal sin, and I'm not even sure it's a sin at all.

You say they are feeling up people for "no reason." Well, unless they are doing it for some type of power-trip or sexual gratification (which is not "no reason" but a sinful reason), then it's not a sin. It's definitely not productive and it may well be unconstitutional but that doesn't make it a mortal sin.

garage mahal said...

Nothing will bring out New Ham quicker than a good groping story. Or a good hot-on-hot lesbian story. Right on time. And where the hell is Fen? Hmmmm.

TRO said...

"The TSA agent who violated my 10-year-old daughter was smiling as he rubbed her vagina to see if she was a Muslim terrorist."

Well obviously if that happened (not at all sure a smile is indicative of his being a pedophile - perhaps he was trying to put on a smiling face so as not to make a totally unpleasant act even more unpleasant?) that is wrong and illegal, and even sinful, however I fail to see how that one incident should automatically translate into all TSA employees being that way.

TRO said...

Oh and by the way, you misquoted me . . . are at least personalized my quote into something it was not meant to be.

But whatever.

TRO said...

"I'd like to know what is really going on and is not being told to the people. They keep increasing all this security despite all the backlash it's getting from the public, so does that mean that they think an attack is imminent? If not, why are we playing into terrorists' hands by ruining our air travel industry? And when the terrorists make the security lines so extreme no one can get anything through, they can still blow up bombs right before where people pass thru security. But are there people in the government panicking because they know an attack is about to hit us?"

Have they raised the rainbow-colored security levels? One would think they would do that as well.

Good point, though.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"I fail to see how that one incident should automatically translate into all TSA employees being that way ..."

Not every Nazi was Josef Mengele.

Some were just privates.

TRO said...

"Not every Nazi was Josef Mengele.

Some were just privates."

So, let me get this straight. Every single TSA security screener is a pedophile?

Well, hell, if that's the case then it's a good thing. We know where they are and can all just take the trains now.

Freeman Hunt said...

Funny. I was thinking about this yesterday.

The new feel up policy seems very unfair to the TSA employees. Imagine if your job description suddenly changed to looking at people naked or aggressively groping them!

I would hate it because I would know that I was constantly invading people's privacy and making them feel uncomfortable.

I suppose a person's individual financial situation would factor heavily into whether or not he could quit.

Freeman Hunt said...

"would quit" not "could quit"

hawkeyedjb said...

Hmm, very interesting poll results, not what I expected. Especially the last choice.

Titus, how many times did you vote?

BarryD said...

Freeman, I think you have the libertarian impulse: you WANT to respect others' privacy and boundaries. That's the impulse I feel, also.

However, there are many people who do not have this voice in their heads. They get off on being able to have power over others, if just for a moment.

Teenagers who walk extra slowly while blocking traffic in town during the lunch rush, the annoying person in HR who loves to make you fill out poorly-constructed but mandatory forms and gleefully watches while refusing to help, and some people who work for TSA are cut from the same cloth.

Not everyone thinks like you do (sadly).

Elliott A said...

Until proven otherwise, only behavioral screening works. In Israel, everyone looks Arabic, so profiling is a no go. Since the ONLY people to attempt a terror attack on a plane in the post 9-11 era are Muslims, looking at them exta closely only makes sense, while patting down Mrs. Tiger Woods is an utter waste of time.

Michael said...

It is a make work job, essentially mindless. I would be happy to pay them all to stay home and have half a dozen people deciding which 20 percent of passengers have to go through the old metal detectors, choosing on a common sense basis.

BarryD said...

Patting down Elin Nordegren would NOT be an utter waste of my time, and I say that as a happily-married man!

Cedarford said...

New "Hussein" Ham said...
"Curious as to why you think they are enjoying (rubbing 10-year-old vaginas)?"

The TSA agent who violated my 10-year-old daughter was smiling as he rubbed her vagina to see if she was a Muslim terrorist.

I'm pretty sure he was getting his rocks off and I'm fairly certain that's the entire point of it..
================
I call bullshit on "New Ham".

Bad as the situation is, TSA is matched to respective sexes when doing the "evildoer defeating gropes on Americans".
Meaning no male TSA agent is touching the privates of a 10 year old girl.

A couple chickenhawk bull dykes perhaps are doing it, but no TSA guys.

Marshal said...

By the way garage, your principle that those against SCHIP are against children applied to this circumstance would mean you think those against groping are in favor of terrorists killing Americans. Do you realize yet how stupid that is?

Hagar said...

When I was in the Army, the RA's would rant and rave about how they had had it up to here, and this was positively their last hitch, etc., then go silent about 90 days before their hitch was up, and at 30 days they would go in and re-up again.

Most people will talk brave, but when push come to shove, they will knuckle under.

Anglelyne said...

Is this at all relevant?

Sure, who doesn't feel empathy for the decent folk who are just trying to earn their bread at a crappy job? Is this situation somehow unique to the non-thug employees of TSA? I feel sorry for people reduced to crappy telemarketing jobs, too, but that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that their company has no effin' right to be pestering me in the first place, and does not ameliorate this transgression in any way, shape, or form.

On the car radio this afternoon I caught a lady on Rush (Mark Steyn sitting in) making this same pitch - her husband worked for TSA and was just doing his job and sob, sob, sob, therefore...therefore, what? Apparently she thought, by some chain of illogic, that the public rage was somehow tied up with the public's not understanding her husband's position and feelings. But none of this has anything to freakin' do with her husband and his feelings - as if how TSA employees felt about their work had jack merde to do with the the validity or invalidity of the procedures. If people only knew that her husband didn't like feeling up travelers anymore than they liked being felt up, we'd all relax and be cool with the strip'n'grope?

Ffs, it's not about the TSA employees. I'm getting irritated listening to this "empathy" tack, because it's a distraction from the real issue.

James said...

So people don't want full-body scans because other people might see an image of your genitals.

And people don't want be patted down, because of worries over "groping."

But if another person gets on a plane with explosives in his underpants, everyone will scream at the TSA for not catching it...when we didn't want to give them the ability to catch it...

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"So, let me get this straight. Every single TSA security screener is a pedophile?"

Some of them are just privates.

Look ... this has nothing to do with terrorism. Osama bin Laden is not hiding in your grandmother's underwear. He's in Pakistan. I think Barack Obama and his band of pedos should go there and search for him instead of molesting my fucking child.

This isn't about airport security. If it was about airport security, they'd molest people at the gates of the airport ... not wait until everyone is grouped inside ... like sitting fucking ducks.

It's about Obama and Janet "Lesbian" Incompetano proving they have the power to molest us with complete impunity.

They're training us. And they're training our 10-year-old daughters to expect government employees feeling their vaginas and that they have no say over the matter. That they must meekly accept their molestation.

It's disgusting. it's immoral, and we should not fucking put up with it. The next TSA agent who rubs my kid's vagina deserves to get the holy fuck beat out of him.

Real terrorists are out there - waiting and watching - and laughing their asses off that Barack Obama has his henchmen getting their jollies off molesting our kids.

edutcher said...

Fprawl said...

Making this a Federal Govt. Position was a big mistake. If I were TSA, I'd rationalize all of it.
Remember 'The Big Chill' line.


Forget The Big Chill; remember Terrible Tiny Tommy Daschle, "You don't professionalize unless you federalize".

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"I fail to see how that one incident should automatically translate into all TSA employees being that way ..."

Not every Nazi was Josef Mengele.


Not every German was a Nazi, either, but damned few said, "No", when ordered to open fire on unarmed civilians.

Cedarford said...

achmafooma -
"Two reasons (not presented in any particular order of importance):

1) As a [hypothetical] TSA employee and federal worker, I'd have sworn an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. These searches are an obvious violation of the 4th Amendment. I am not willing to violate a solemn oath."

================
Any employee that took that line and imagined him or herself as a jailhouse lawyer and Constitutional expert would find themselves fired. And if any real attorney took the trouble to look at the wrongful discharge lawsuit sure to come from the expert jailhouse lawyer - they would inform the jailhouse lawyer that "exceptions to the 4th" related to regulatory and safety functions mandated by Congress have long standing in the law. Starting with customs, captain of vessel authority to search persons and property of passengers for hazards and contraband, etc.

Next thing you know, the TSA jailhouse lawyer is back at McDonalds, seeing if his or her old job is open.

bandmeeting said...

TRAINS

I've not really got anything against trains.....in Europe. I took the train from Montreal to NYC last summer and you will never, ever see me do that again. NYC to Boston or Wash, OK. I could have flown to Tokyo in the time it took to do Montreal to NYC.

jr565 said...

a pat down turned to a grope which turned to molestation. No wonder people are up in arms. The TSA is molesting kids!

Cedarford said...

James said...
So people don't want full-body scans because other people might see an image of your genitals.

And people don't want be patted down, because of worries over "groping."

But if another person gets on a plane with explosives in his underpants, everyone will scream at the TSA for not catching it...when we didn't want to give them the ability to catch it...

====================
Yeah, right. Especially since Chertoff's porn scanners appear to be ineffective at finding explosives sewn in underwear, let alone distinguishing between 12 Oz of C-4 and a maxipad.

Everyone will be saying the next time an Islamoid bomber from Somalia not screened or groped differently than some 11-year old white kid (and quite possibly groped a lot less than several USC cheerleaders on their way to a game in Michigan) - is "Why didn't the underwear scanner and ball squeeze work!!" "We demand naked scrotum and pussy inspection and fondling next!" "Just please don't single out Muslims, the vast majority of which are peaceful and deserving of special rights against being outraged and humiliated."

No - none will say - why not check out the Somali better?? Right?

t-man said...

Only slightly OT -

I've revised my feelings about the David Arquette, Courtney Cox situation. I don't think CC can be faulted for not wanted to schedule sex with this.

Also, this image make me feel some sympathy for the TSA workers who may have to screen DA on an upcoming flight.

Anglelyne said...

James: But if another person gets on a plane with explosives in his underpants, everyone will scream at the TSA for not catching it...when we didn't want to give them the ability to catch it...

Could we use one of them fancy scanners to figure out who has the thicker skull, James or jr565?

James, we already had everything necessary to apprehend the crotch-bomber, no scanners required. You're goddamned right I'm going to scream at the TSA for screwing up when they'd been given the ability to catch him, and chose to let him through instead. If they refused to follow their own effective procedures pre-scan'n'grope, what makes you think they're going to be any more competent with scan'n'grope?

jr565 said...

James wrote:
But if another person gets on a plane with explosives in his underpants, everyone will scream at the TSA for not catching it...when we didn't want to give them the ability to catch it...


They're worrid about the kid being groped by the scary TSA guy but not the guy who blows up the plane with their kid on it.

t-man said...

Also,

If the federal government weren't simultaneously lying to us and recalling alcoholic beverages with caffein as unsafe (rum and coke? irish coffee?) I would have some faith that the reasons they are giving for the groping are true.

Anglelyne said...

jr565: They're worrid about the kid being groped by the scary TSA guy but not the guy who blows up the plane with their kid on it.

Dayum, jr, you must have invested a bundle in those scanners to be reduced to this level of slimy shilling. Or are you some TSA guy at Orlando Sanford?

Anglelyne said...

t-man: If the federal government weren't simultaneously lying to us and recalling alcoholic beverages with caffein as unsafe (rum and coke? irish coffee?

No kidding. I guess next the nannies are going to ban restaurants from serving the traditional coffee at the end of leisurely meals involving the consumption of various bottles of wine.

jr565 said...

Anglelyne wrote:
James, we already had everything necessary to apprehend the crotch-bomber, no scanners required. You're goddamned right I'm going to scream at the TSA for screwing up when they'd been given the ability to catch him, and chose to let him through instead. If they refused to follow their own effective procedures pre-scan'n'grope, what makes you think they're going to be any more competent with scan'n'grope?

Er, the fact that they're now using scanners that can detect weapons and are using pat downs that wll find weapons where they weren't looking before. One procedure didn't look at the security flaw and the other does. Hence, you'll probably have better results when you address security flaws.

Drew said...

"We were just doing our jobs" has a long and storied history.

chuck b. said...

Once you have one of those government union jobs, no one in private industry will ever hire you.

Anglelyne said...

jr565: Er, the fact that they're now using scanners that can detect weapons and are using pat downs that wll find weapons where they weren't looking before. One procedure didn't look at the security flaw and the other does. Hence, you'll probably have better results when you address security flaws.

So jr, yes or no - do you advocate mandatory anal probes of passengers, since secreting bombs in body cavities exposes a "security flaw" in current procedures, and anal probes will find weapons where they weren't being looked for before. The logic for their use is exactly the same as that which you're using for grope'n'scan, and any reason for not mandating them can also be applied to grope'n'scan, so I don't know why you keep evading this question.

I'll start taking you seriously when you acknowledge the incontrovertible fact that all the information necessary to keep the crotch-bomber off that plane was available and actionable, and none of it came from scanners or gropers.

Lucien said...

So . . . just how many of these pat downs does the average TSA employee have to perform on any given shift before their concentration and efficiency go kerflooey?

If everybody opts out, won't the capacity to do the pat-downs be overwhelmed?

TRO said...

"Look ... this has nothing to do with terrorism. Osama bin Laden is not hiding in your grandmother's underwear. He's in Pakistan. I think Barack Obama and his band of pedos should go there and search for him instead of molesting my fucking child.

This isn't about airport security. If it was about airport security, they'd molest people at the gates of the airport ... not wait until everyone is grouped inside ... like sitting fucking ducks.

It's about Obama and Janet "Lesbian" Incompetano proving they have the power to molest us with complete impunity.

They're training us. And they're training our 10-year-old daughters to expect government employees feeling their vaginas and that they have no say over the matter. That they must meekly accept their molestation.

It's disgusting. it's immoral, and we should not fucking put up with it. The next TSA agent who rubs my kid's vagina deserves to get the holy fuck beat out of him.

Real terrorists are out there - waiting and watching - and laughing their asses off that Barack Obama has his henchmen getting their jollies off molesting our kids."

I don't know what to say to all this. Yeah, the searches are not doing anything help security. No argument there. But this whole obsession you have about some TSA kid molestation effort and the constant need to keep repeating "ten year old vaginas" is a little disconcerting . . . even creepy.

I'm sincerely sorry your daughter was searched and I imagine it was quite uncomfortable for her, but frankly if you're hmmm, I want to say unhinged, but I'll just go with unsettled, about it, she's no doubt picking-up on it and it's making things a lot worse.

I don't believe that the vast majority of TSA screeners are getting their jollies doing this. That doesn't mean I defend the policy. It's wrong. It's ineffective. It is dehumanizing to those searched, and no doubt to many if not most of those doing the searches.

That alone is enough to stop it.

Celia Hayes said...

I'd be gone, too - I had a job for a year that I hated, hated everything about, hated doing it, hated walking into the building, hated the clients, hated the workstation and the software ... basically, felt myself die a little, every day. I filed my notice and walked away a year ago last Labor Day.
A paycheck is fine ... but dying by inches to earn it is a Hell that I didn't need that badly.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

" ... if another person gets on a plane with explosives in his underpants, everyone will scream at the TSA for not catching it."

God this comment is such fucking bullshit.

The underwear bomber was known to the Barack Obama administration BEFORE he boarded the aircraft. The bomber's own father reported him to the State Department. Begged us not to allow the guy into the country.

Hillary Clinton then issued the Muslim terrorist - who she'd been warned about - a VISA to enter the United States.

There will be a bomb on an aircraft, but it won't be in the panties of a 10-year-old American girl.

And it won't be because that 10-year-old girl snuck past the pedophiles molesting us at the airports.

It will be in the colon of a Muslim. And no amount of "probing" is going to find it.

It will be because Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not doing their fucking jobs keeping radical Muslims the fuck out of OUR country.

And when the bomb goes off, they'll rightly be made to pay for it.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"this whole obsession you have about some TSA kid molestation effort and the constant need to keep repeating "ten year old vaginas" is a little disconcerting . . . even creepy."

I'm merely describing what is happening to innocent Americans all over the country.

You're right. It's fucking creepy. Government officials - many of them gays and lesbians - are feeling up 10-year-old girls and boys at airports.

The mainstream media keeps focusing on the adults ... but they're molesting the kids mostly. And deliberately. They're training the kids to expect government officials to be able to feel their vaginas and penises whenever there is a "security risk."

They're training our children to meekly accept molestation as long as it's "official."

They're sick perverts and Americans are rightly upset that their children are being treated like they're fucking terrorists or something.

Our kids didn't fly aircraft into buildings on 9-11.

ONLY Muslims did.

Kev said...

Making this a Federal Govt. Position was a big mistake.

Making most things a federal government position is a big mistake. That's why I favor not only term limits for bureaucrats, but but the outlawing of government jobs as entry-level positions. Anyone who wishes to work for the government must first prove his/her competence in some sector of the productive class, and then they can spend 10-12 years applying that competence to true public service, after which they return to the productive class once again.

Bill said...

If it is wrong to commit a crime under orders in the military, why is the TSA getting away with contravening our Fourth Amendment rights and committing sexual assault and getting away with it?

Further I propose that Napalitano is a deviate who likes being able to command that such offenses be committed.

yashu said...

People keep forgetting N"H"H is a moby/ troll. But, whatever.

jr565 said...

You know how those who support waterboarding say they will submit to a waterboarding if the other side will just stop caling it torture?
On my next filght I will let them interrogate me, then I will demand to walk through the open body scanner not once but three times. then I will step back in line and let the pat me down or grope me as you describe it, if it will get you morons to shut up about how the TSA is destroying all liberty. Then I willl demand that they put my pictures up on drudge and Popular Mechanics where they can look at my glorious silhouetted and imagine what my face looks like. If you will stop with the hyperbole!
Jeezus. And I couldn't stand it when liberals were being babies about the poor terrorists getting waterboarded

jr565 said...

Bill wrote:

why is the TSA getting away with contravening our Fourth Amendment rights and committing sexual assault and getting away with it?

Because they are not commiting sexual assaut and getting away with it. As simple as that.

yashu said...

On this issue, so far, I pretty much agree with jr565.

jr565 said...

New Hussein ham wrote:
You're right. It's fucking creepy. Government officials - many of them gays and lesbians - are feeling up 10-year-old girls and boys at airports.

The mainstream media keeps focusing on the adults ... but they're molesting the kids mostly. And deliberately. They're training the kids to expect government officials to be able to feel their vaginas and penises whenever there is a "security risk."

Oh brother.

jr565 said...

Cedardford wrote:
Have friends you have made at airports in other jobs "spread the word" that they hear Muslim women are being considered for exemption of "scan and grope" because of religious convictions and fear that groping Muslims will only "encourage radicalism". That will sit real well with a family from Beloit off visiting granma and granpa on the Holidays.

Sure if you're going to call pat downs gropings and sexual assaults on children and if you're going to call a full body scanner a rape box then why not mischaracterize what the TSA is doing and say they are making exceptions for muslims. Sure, add to the hyperbole. And yet, we should take you seriously when it comes to securing airports?

LilyBart said...

I think there good people who work for the TSA just trying to make a living. They had an OK job until a couple of weeks ago when it turned kind of hellish. Now they have to grope icky people, who blame them for the intrusion and call them ugly names.

And then there are others who are on a power trip, and are possibly getting 'off' on touching people.

The TSA is going to have a hard time keeping the first kind of employee, and, as a result, we will get to face more of the 2nd kind.

This isn't the rank and file TSA worker's fault. This is our Government's fault. They are taking the easy and politically correct path - and thereby making life harder for the TSA workers and for the flying public.

And I just don't believe the flying public will 'get over this' and settle down. I hate this and will fly less as a result.

I fly about 8-9 times a year, or I used to. I have (had) plans to fly 2 more times over the next month. I can't get out of the next trip, but have cancelled the second one.

LilyBart said...

Dear JR565: I've seen you on several boards now, on a personal mission to support this new procedure. You've already admitted that you rarely fly. What gives? (be honest)

jr565 said...

Lilybart wrote:
Dear JR565: I've seen you on several boards now, on a personal mission to support this new procedure. You've already admitted that you rarely fly. What gives? (be honest)

Because seriously a bunch of peple are acting like retards now (a bunch of people I usually agree with). ANd the hyperbole has gotten to the point where it's almost farcical. Why can't people simply argue the full body scanner and the pat down on the merits. Does it have to be groping and molesting of children?

LilyBart said...

Ok, JR, who neither flys nor works for the TSA, but is nonetheless exercised about this issue......

I see this as a terrible violation. And I remain unconvinced that this new screening process is making me measurably safer. (the US Government telling me its necessary and safe (radiation) does not persuade me. I believe they have no respect for me and are likely to mislead me to get me to submit to their plans - I speak of the government and the head of the TSA - not the averge TSA worker)

And I won't believe the government is serious about security until they start profiling.

Also, I'm guessing you're a guy - I know a number of guys who don't understand why its such a big deal. Most women understand completely. My husband didn't understand either; until I pointed out they were taking virtual strip search pictures and touching his 13 year old daughter, too.

Skyler said...

You forgot tar and feathers on your poll choice again.

SarahW said...

You left out an option... opt continue to collect my paycheck though it means committing violative actions against my (unsuspected) countrymen and other travelers, even when I know what I am doing is wrong.

Instead I will cry bitterly about being criticized for obeying immoral and ineffective orders from above.

After all my TSO toadish self would otherwise be out of a paycheck, so why isn't everyone making it nice for ME.

Fen said...

jr: Why can't people simply argue the full body scanner and the pat down on the merits. Does it have to be groping and molesting of children?

Okay. Fine.

What do you think is going to happen after the first time Muhammad sneaks explosives through in his rectum?

The scanners won't pick it up. So lets follow your logic - do you draw the line at anal probes?

jr565 said...

Fen wrote:
Okay. Fine.

What do you think is going to happen after the first time Muhammad sneaks explosives through in his rectum?

The scanners won't pick it up. So lets follow your logic - do you draw the line at anal probes?

It wouldn't be practical to submit people to anal probes, and an anal probing is physically painful and takes a long time to perform. So they will not be able to go that far (and noone would seriously suggest that) However, what will morel likely happen is the will look to find a scanner that can see internally and then if it's not too invasive or causes cancer use that in the place of or in addition to what they use now. along with any other means of detecting a bomb. Maybe a sniffer dog would have a better chance of detecting something or maybe they could use an agent that can detect the compounds that are found in explosives. Perhaps the technology is not there yet. If there is no way to detect a bomb in someones rectum and people start blowing up planes with bombs in rectums and it became disruptive enough, they might alternately restrict muslims from flying or restrict flying to or from certain locations.
While I can't say what technology they could use to find a bomb in your ass, I do know they have technology that can detect weapons or bombs on your person that are not visible to the naked eye, and they can see explosives in your shoes. And neither requires you to be anal probed, so then why not use the capabilities? The downside of using the capabilities would be the cost of using the capability. But as I mentioned there is very little downside to using a full body scan. (if it showed you fully naked and you could see your picture in hires then it would be more of a downside and I would say it's not worth it barring extenuating circumstances. If stepping through the scanner seriously increased your risk of dying of cancer, then of course they shoulnd't be used. And if it took hours for one person to be scanned, then it woulnd't be practical to use. None of which are the case though. So then, weigh the harm versus the benefit.

jr565 said...

Lilybart wrote:
I see this as a terrible violation. And I remain unconvinced that this new screening process is making me measurably safer. (the US Government telling me its necessary and safe (radiation) does not persuade me. I believe they have no respect for me and are likely to mislead me to get me to submit to their plans - I speak of the government and the head of the TSA - not the averge TSA worker)

And I won't believe the government is serious about security until they start profiling.


Wel first off you won't find a bigger supporter of taking a fight to the enemy than me. I have no qualms about them using drone attacks phosphorous waterboarding wiretaps, the patriot act to kill off jihadis. Im not arguing this as a liberal. I'm kind of surprised that all of a sudden the conservatives who suppotted the patriot act and got mad that the nyt leaked our covert surveilllance operations are now up in arms that they are being subjected to patdowsn at airports. As far as patdowns I'm surprised because prior to this week you can't have gone on a plane and not at least seen a patdown. When I flew in France this year I was patted down. If they took a picture of the guy patting me down from a certain angle it might look like the guy was touching my junk. Yet, all he did was a ROUTINE patdown. I rightly assume that that patdown was simply the way security knows I dont have a weapon on a plane. As I wasn't the only guy being patted down I didn't mind, as I assumed that because they patted others down they too were not carrying stuff on a plane. Therefore there was less of a chance for me to die, or to have to try to wrestle said weapon from a terrorist before he killed me. That is a benefit to me. And I dont think that that patdown was too much to bear for the tradeoff that the plane was secure. Do you?
The only problem with profiling (in addition to the fact that it is incomplete) is that a lot of it is behind the scenes so even if they are profiling you wont' know it. And while you can say you don't want the govt to assume you're a terrorist, and to concentrate on muslims, most muslims are not terrorists. So they will feel just as put upon as you, if in fact they are americans and not terrorists (who happen to be muslim)

jr565 said...

Lilybart wrote:
Also, I'm guessing you're a guy - I know a number of guys who don't understand why its such a big deal. Most women understand completely. My husband didn't understand either; until I pointed out they were taking virtual strip search pictures

That would be more of an issue if those pictures were actual strip search pictures that showed your daughter fully nude. But they really don't have that level of detail. Are you worried about the xray technicial seeing your daughter naked if he sees her x ray picture? Leave aside whether the scanner should or shouldn't be used in this particular case, talk just about the quality of the pictures. They are simply not offensive because they don't show anything. And I'll acknowledge that if they did, that would be a potential reason to not use the scanner. But if they don't let's not get in high dugeon as if they do.

and touching his 13 year old daughter, too.


again, if they are groping your daughter then they are going to far, but if they are patting down your daughter then there isn't really much for you to worry about. To give you perspective, I"ll tell you that my mom is against the scanners. And I asked her if she would go through the scanners, and she said it was crazy, she wouldn't want to have someone see her naked (even though you really couldn't see her naked) . And I then asked if she would instead be patted down and she said she's already been patted down when she flew. So if she's already been patted down and it didn't phase her, how could she be outraged that they would pat her down? I suppose I could have taken the tact when she was patted down "How dare that security guard grope my 65 year old mother!" but that was simply not the way it happened. It was simply a routine security protocol that is done to countless people by the TSA or even by EL AL, and professional people can do it and not GROPE you. So then why if it's already part of routine air travel would I turn a pat down into some example of serial groping and atempts to molest kids. If my elderly mom could be patted down I don't see why a thirteen year old couldn't be (provided of course that the person doing the pat down was a professional and not groping her. If he was groping her, then of course I could see loding a complaint. But lets not turn pat downs into gropes and then assume that it's unreasonable and a violation of the 4th amendment for airlines to do pat downs becasue that is simply not an accurate portrayal of your rights when flying or your protections under the 4th amendment.

LilyBart said...

Dude, I've seen images from scanners where the detail was very good. Like a 9th grade boy's dream - that good.

And you don't get to decide levels of sensitivity for other people. If someone puts their hands on my crotch or runs their hands across my butt, I'm very unhappy about it. Its an intrusion. And this is NOT an unreasonable position to take.

Either they find another approach - or the airline industry as we know it is doomed.

Kirk Parker said...

BarryD,

"I say that as a happily-married man!"

But not for long, apparently.

David Gerard said...

Hey, some people might consider that sexually molesting children for pay was morally questionable - but you gotta understand, they get dental.