Haven't heard too much about the fuss since the initial announcements of the pat downs. T-Day travel went well enough so far.
The wife was in a wheel chair on our trip out west in August and got a full scale patdown at McCarran on the way back cause she couldn't go through the metal detector in a wheel chair. It was very invasive and took about 10 minutes but she did not mind. I'm not going through the scanners just because of the radiation. I've had way too much lately and don't need extra. So, I'll take the pat down instead. Hell, they can strip search me for all I care as long as the floor and furniture is sanitary. I don't think its right, but I know the choices in advance.
From what I've come to understand, you only get the extra screening if you set of the metal detector or have baggy clothing. I still believe the scanners are a step in the wrong direction and this is more political than anything else. If it was such a big deal, they would have done this within a couple months of the pantybomber's flight rather than nearly a year later.
Until cargo gets 100% inspection, its still nothing more than a symbolic front of security. We play Russian Roulette everytime cargo gets loaded on an aircraft. The pantybomber was flagged before he even got onboard a plane yet that system didn't work as promised. The Times Square bomber was on the watch list but still got onboard a plane. These new scanners are just some hardware the government can present some receipts for and say they are doing something.
I just heared of a handheld sniffer that has been developed that can actually detect bomb residue better than the recently scrapped puffers and for much less money. I'm still going to fly, this won't stop me. If my time's up, its up, but I'm still not going to stop flying.
What will matter to me down the road is the scrutiny of cargo and the kinds of exemptions made from security screenings other than flight crew. I see no other reasons, such as religious beliefs to exempt one from screenings as being valid. And the other thing I wll be paying attention to is how new technology such as the new hand held sniffers are implimented. If these new things are not allowed to be used instead of the invasive body scanning, then I will begin thinking of other motives for the scanners' use.
I was wondering what happened to the puffers that had been in use for the last 5 years or so before commenting on the topic, because they really attempted to find what we are still searching for better than what we are now using. Here is a link to an article about why they are no longer in use. At least we tried something better before resorting to what we are talking about now.
Location: Geo Update: 35.568622, -121.10409 you're close enough Gender:
Posted:
Nov 25, 2010 - 4:06pm
oldslabsides wrote:
Happy humiliation!
Those TSA's must either be real freaks or really hard-up . . . for a buck that is! (who in their right mind would want to grope the dregs of humanity all day, especially those flying coach!)
This one didn't come from The Onion. It originated here. Scroll to the very very bottom of the page and read the wee note to readers.
My point: the Onion is funny and makes people laugh. As opposed to this. I knew it wasn't real but it never occurred to me that there was an attempt at levity.
You know what? If you're chubby, that is obvious even when you're fully clothed. Detail much beyond that is not revealed by the scanners. Get over it.
Until we somehow learn to approach the terrorism problem from the other end (see Greg Mortenson and his schools, for one), then some slight inconvenience is inevitable. Embarrassment and moral outrage? Those are totally optional. People who choose them could choose otherwise.
We could also simply accept that one flight in, oh, a hundred thousand or so is going to be damaged or brought down by illicit activities of one sort or another and just waltz on unscreened, thus rendering air travel only several hundred percent safer than any other means of travel, but in a political and social climate that thinks it's reasonable to even talk about a *zero* accident rate in aviation, that's not likely, either.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go be paranoid about something. Anything. Really. I'll find something, if I try hard enough. . . .
Do you know what a parody website is? Have you heard of The Onion? You might want to look into the source of this particular 'news report' just a tad closer.
Oh wait. You didn't provide a link to the story, didja? I guess then that you are trying to lure others into your fantastical delusions.
Carry on silly one.
Which illustrates why the Onion is so great. This was trying to be funny? I called BS on it but not because I thought it was a joke. I just thought it was BS.
There are a hella lot of planes taking off from O'Hare tonight, and they are NOISY! 2 million people will fly in and out of O'Hare this weekend, and many of them will take off right over my house.
Wonder how many of them had to be molested as the price for moving around their own country?
There are a hella lot of planes taking off from O'Hare tonight, and they are NOISY! 2 million people will fly in and out of O'Hare this weekend, and many of them will take off right over my house.
