Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: More thoughts on junk touching Previous entry: Tired but still cracking jokes

Junk touching

Due to traveling, I haven’t had much time to comment on the uproar over the TSA upping the game on security theater, to the point where people who are generally supportive of security theater—-aka, conservatives—-are getting upset.  So upset, in fact, that some of the dumber ones were taunting me over Twitter, having convinced themselves that I support the pat downs, on the grounds that I’m obviously Satan.  Of course, grown adults realize that someone like myself who wrote an entire chapter in my book denouncing security theater is unlikely to suddenly think that penis-fondling at the gate is great.  My main objection to conservatives getting involved is that they’re mostly acting out of racism—-they aren’t upset at junk touching, per se.  They just think the junk fondled should be excused if it passes some modern paper bag test, except the paper bag should be super white. 

Since I did my time in security lines this weekend, you may be wondering if I saw anything out of the ordinary.  Answer: no.  By the way, the choice between scanners and searches isn’t anything new.  I was pulled for a random search in El Paso in August, and I chose the full body scan, because I’ve been patted down with the old procedures before, and if you’re a woman you still feel pretty molested by that.  The shift that’s created all the anger is that the procedures have gotten invasive to the point where men might feel molested.  Don’t fuck with the privileged, man.  The procedures already had a heightened humiliation factor for women, which I’ve experienced myself*, but it took making white men feel like women and people of color often do for this to be pushed into the next zone of full blown anger.

This makes me want to join in the outrage, with concerns that the TSA is simply going to readjust the protocols to the standards set by conservatives flipping out—-which is to say, if you do it to women and non-white men, okay, but leave the white guys alone.  Of course, you could argue effectively that this is a good first step.  If they simply introduce discrimination into the system, you can sue and then it brings a complete end to the assaulting searches.  But what I worry about is that rarely do people introducing discrimination into the system do it in a straightforward manner that makes them vulnerable to lawsuit.  Instead, a bunch of complex rules evolve that just so happen to have the desired results, where white guys get a pass but no one else does. Then they get to have their cake (creating unnecessary security theater to cow the populace) while eating it too (keeping the most privileged out of the loop so that the complaints go ignored by the mainstream media). 

Early signs show my concerns are valid.  For instance, the TSA allowed the pilot union to get an exemption for their staff, but disallowed this for the flight attendants.  This creates a nifty system where a predominantly male group doesn’t have to have the pat downs, but a predominantly female group does.  Now, I’m not saying women are being targeted because everyone enjoys groping women or anything.  I’m annoyed by the people who are acting like your average TSA agent is dying to touch your junk.  I’m saying that women are an easier target because they get less attention and empathy than men when they complain.  The fact that “don’t touch my junk!” has become the rallying cry shows how much male privilege is wrapped up in people’s understanding of why this is wrong.  Not that I’m saying junk-touching is good!  I’m saying no one deserves to have junk touched, even if they have junk—-as women do—-that tends not to be called “junk”. 

My understanding of the police state is such: it exists in order to increase government power and decrease civil liberties.  Highly theatrical security theater in particular functions to increase people’s tolerance of privacy invasions.  As such, it’s wise for those instituting a police state to prefer vulnerable victims over privileged ones.  Their first instinct when they’ve gone too far is not to roll back the invasions of privacy, but to find a way to make sure the people whose voices are heard aren’t affected, and therefore the complaints stop.  Notice that “keeping the public safe” plays no role in my understanding of this, because I seriously doubt that it does.  Most of these searches are more about “sending a message” than anything else. 

Of course, the pragmatic side of me says that even if the TSA just tries to rewrite the rules so that vulnerable people are getting the most invasive searches, you still have an opportunity to sue and bring the whole thing down.  And there’s a possibility that the TSA can’t find a way to stop the searches of white men without stopping the searches of everyone else.  (Yes, I’m aware many of the examples upsetting people are women.  I’m glad for that, but wonder if the pile-on would be as all-encompassing if it was only women feeling horribly humiliated.)  While I’m cynical that the outrage would stop the second the privileged decided that it was someone else’s problem, I’m super glad there is outrage.  It’s a reminder that the objections to civil liberties violations are a matter far beyond the way conservatives portray those objections when it’s someone else’s liberties at stake—-as some intellectual exercise instead of a serious humiliation for the targets. 

And hey, there’s always a possibility that we can use the anger about these TSA searches and start directing it to all the other ways the highly invasive police state works in our culture.  That would be awesome, even if it’s a long shot. 

*Mainly because certain items of women’s clothing were more of a problem, plus they touched your boobs if they did the pat down. And my feeling in terms of the old leg pat down is they might as well have touched my junk on the outside of my pants, they got so close.  Thank god I was wearing pants.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:52 AM • (119) Comments

It’s gotten to the point where men are afraid of contact with their own junk.  (NSFW in most places.)

Comment #1: 3letterjon  on  11/23  at  12:06 PM

All of this.

I’m particularly amused by the new urban legend that Muslim women wearing hijab are exempt from scans and patdowns. Plenty of the conservative white dude outrage I’ve seen seems tagged to this—they’re infuriated by the idea that they might get groped while a brown furrin Mooslim woman gets to go free, not just that they might get groped. I’ve seen plenty of calls for “profiling,” i.e. strip search brown people and let white people go free, because only brown people could be terrorists. (Mostly see these in the cesspool of news website comments.)

I mean, sometimes this kind of thing increases empathy—someone who never thought how women must feel when they get groped, or how poor people and POC must feel when they get treated like criminals for no reason, might catch a clue when they get a taste of it. But some people are immune to the clue-by-four, unfortunately.

I agree—I hope the conservative white dude outrage gets it stopped for everyone.

Until then, I won’t fly unless I absolutely cannot avoid it.

Comment #2: snowmentality  on  11/23  at  12:15 PM

I don’t doubt that the “OMG NOT THE MENZ” factor is at play here, but I also think that it has intersected with “won’t someone think of the children?!?!” into a perfect storm of American taboos. At least half the comments I’ve seen are along the lines of, “the first TSA agent who grabs my kid’s crotch is gonna wish she/he’d never been born”.

Comment #3: Well, what?  on  11/23  at  12:28 PM

This is pretty much the standard way civil liberties abuses get brought into the mainstream. You never heard conservatives and libertarians yelling about police overreach until the police started harassing white men. Even now most of them act as though police abusing authority started within the last decade or so. They’re against it for the wrong reasons, but I’ll bloody well take what I can get if it means a push against the authoritarians for non-white and non-men too. Strangely enough, they seem to have convinced themselves they were always on the right side on THAT issue too, even though they were the very ones yelling at liberals about being “Soft on Crime” when it was just minorities.

Sadly, it’s looking like the civil liberties abuses by the TSA aren’t going to be ended because everyone is entitled to basic human dignity and control over their bodies and who touches them, but because people are absolutely terrified of being inconvenienced when a bunch of people hold the line up by refusing the scans. Again, I’ll take what I can get, but it’s still kind of depressing.

Comment #4: JThompson  on  11/23  at  12:36 PM

The child thing is truly terrifying, though. No matter how outraged I already was—-and I’m in a permanent state of outrage over this—-attacking children made it worse. They haven’t developed the mental defenses against this. They’re just plain scared.

Comment #5: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/23  at  12:44 PM

I think a lot of the outrage over white women being molested is because it’s a threat to their owner’s masculinity to let someone else touch their property.  This isn’t even an exaggeration, with magazine articles assuring the reader that their wives and children will be protected, as though no woman could possibly be the reader.  And this fits well with the (primarily female) flight attendants getting more screening than the pilots.  Flight attendants are seen as that Other type of women who only exist to be groped anyway.  They’re not like your wife or daughter.  They’re not under the shield of a man so they’re free game.

But there’s definitely a lot of racism and classism here too.  Plenty of rich people, especially the white ones, will think “How dare you suspect me of doing something bad?”  Before these machines were implemented but when there was some speculation about them, I ended up in a conversation about security theater with two rich white male coworkers.  One of them actually said we could avoid all this hassle if we just used profiling, but the PC police wouldn’t allow it.  He said that if he were an Arab man, he would be willing to submit to extra screening and profiling.  And he even said that if middle-aged white guys were responsible for a lot of terrorism, then he would be perfectly willing to submit to extra screening.  I pointed out that middle-aged white guys are responsible for a lot of terrorism, both the kind that is recognized as terrorism and the kind that is described with euphemisms.  Oh, but he’s not like those middle-aged white guys and how could anyone possibly think he’s one of them?  But he never made the connection to realize that Muslim or Muslim-looking people think their differences from terrorist should also be obvious.

My biggest fear is that children who have never known any better will simply get used to this invasion of privacy and it will be that much easier to take away even more rights when they get to voting age.  It’s scary to think that this will seem normal to the next generation.

Comment #6: bananacat  on  11/23  at  12:49 PM

Partly guilty as charged. I wasn’t a big fan of airport security before but the risks with the latest escalation are definitely not worth it to me. Although I’m out of the curve in that it’s not “don’t touch my junk” as the description of the new pat-down procedure hits a button I didn’t know still existed.

Comment #7: CBrachyrhynchos  on  11/23  at  12:53 PM

I think it counts too that in most airports, TSA workers tend to be non-white as well.  It’s not only an invasion of white men but it’s done by non-whites (often).

Comment #8: Loch Ness Monster  on  11/23  at  12:57 PM

catgirl, Re: children, aren’t metal detectors and bag searches used in many schools in the US? What I’m getting at is that the young are actually more accustomed to their right to privacy being flouted. Maybe that’s part of what makes Americans on average gradually more accepting of this stuff? Early indoctrination?

Comment #9: MarinaS  on  11/23  at  01:05 PM

Isn’t some group trying to sue to not allow gay men to be TSA agents because of this? I remember reading about it but have no idea where. I doubt that the lawsuit would be successful, but it does show that some conservatives are already using it as an excuse to further oppress the marginalized.

Comment #10: alysia  on  11/23  at  01:09 PM

O.K., full disclosure:  I am a white male.  I am not shy.  It doesn’t upset me for strangers to see me naked.  It wouldn’t upset me for someone to touch me inappropriately at an airport.  It upsets me a great deal the TSA thinks it has any legitimate authority to do those things.  So, my thoughts on the matter are…

There is no possible justification for full-body scans and enhanced pat-downs as a general procedure, on security grounds or any other.  I hope opt-out day tomorrow brings the country’s major airports to a standstill.  I am sorry it has come to this, but if that is what it takes to get the attention of Congress and Secretary Napolitano, then so be it.

As a short-term solution, Secretary Napolitano should issue an immediate moratorium on full-body scans and enhanced pat-downs until Congress can weigh in on the matter.  As a gesture of goodwill to the flying public, she should also heed the wise Italian saying that the fish rots from the head and fire TSA Administrator Pistole effective yesterday.

There is hope on the horizon.  Rep. John Mica of Florida, a longtime critic of TSA, is expected to chair the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure when the 112th Congress is seated.  If the outrage has not abated by then, the flying public will have a sympathetic ear in an important place.

For that matter, unless he/she is a lame duck, please write to your Senators and Representative now.  Do not waste your time writing to TSA.  Administrator Pistole made it abundantly clear in his testimony before a Senate committee last week that he thinks he is right and anyone who questions his policies is wrong.

Comment #11: Gordon  on  11/23  at  01:13 PM

At least half the comments I’ve seen are along the lines of, “the first TSA agent who grabs my kid’s crotch is gonna wish she/he’d never been born”.
Comment #3: Well, what?  on 11/23 at 11:28 AM

Smugglers use babies and children and their accessories as unwitting mules.  Google diaper drug smuggling, for example.  Why would terrorists be any different?

Which doesn’t make the groping right, it just means that those folks saying “what kind of terrorist do you think my 85-year-old mother/infant/developmentally disabled cousin is?” aren’t thinking very hard. 

There’s no profiling that will work.  We have too many enemies.

And those who think Israeli airport style security is the answer?  Yglesias scotches that notion:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/israeli-airport-security/

Comment #12: oldfeminist  on  11/23  at  01:15 PM

Sadly, I just don’t see how security theater can get rolled back at this point. Too much money is at stake. I hate it, but I think the ‘enhanced’ pat downs and potentially-cancer-causing scans are just the new price we pay for having completely capitulated to the military-industrial complex. We’ll get maybe three more weeks of stories about this, and then the TSA will roll out a new enhanced procedure (back of hand again?) or some sort of stupid privacy filter scan mask that will draw a digital swimsuit on non-metal areas of the scan (a privacy filter that can be turned off, of course, by the scanner - but it never will, except in alarming cases, honest!), and people will get distracted by Christmas and the new fashion craze sweeping the tweens and then these things will just be part of airline travel, like removing your shoes.

Comment #13: the duck-billed placelot  on  11/23  at  01:15 PM

“Re: children, aren’t metal detectors and bag searches used in many schools in the US? What I’m getting at is that the young are actually more accustomed to their right to privacy being flouted.”

Search of their belongings?  Yes.  Strangers touching their breasts/genitals?  Hell no.  Good touch/bad touch. “Don’t go with strange adults,” and “Nobody gets to touch you there without your permission” are pretty big in most elementary school lessons and with most parents.  So asking parents to stand their while their kids have their privates groped by a stranger and, a lot of the time, react exactly as years of conditioning about that being a Really Bad Thing is not going to fly with either the parents or the children.

Comment #14: preying mantis  on  11/23  at  01:17 PM

“I hate it, but I think the ‘enhanced’ pat downs and potentially-cancer-causing scans are just the new price we pay for having completely capitulated to the military-industrial complex.”

This, thank you for saying what I wanted to (better).

Comment #15: Thealogian  on  11/23  at  01:22 PM

Teenagers are used to metal detectors and searches.  Are we really subjecting 2nd graders to that now?

Comment #16: Loch Ness Monster  on  11/23  at  01:25 PM

I really hate the way the news media is conflating the new backscatter machines with the “enhanced pat-down.”  I’m not a fan of the backscatter machines. I think they are an unreasonable invasion of privacy, I’m not overly sure that they’ll help much and I think they’re being introduced in order to enrich the company making them. But the “enhanced pat-downs” are an entirely different matter. The regular (back of the hands) pat-down I used to get freaked me out and brought me almost to tears, I think I’d lose it if I got full-on groped.

I also hate all the arguments that we need to “sacrifice” for our country and this is for everyone’s safety and blah blah blah. The pat-downs that I have seen described would be indisputable sexual assault if not done by an official. And outside of airports officials are only allowed to pursue such thorough screenings when someone is in custody. It is considered unreasonable (and thus unconstitutional) to do more than a surface pat-down (over the outerclothes) when an officer has reasonable suspicion that someone in public is engaged in criminal activity and armed. The idea that people traveling by plane have fewer rights than someone behaving in a suspicious manner on the street is ludicrous. We have a constitutional right to interstate travel, just as we have a constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures - the government cannot leverage our desire/need to fly to force us to give up our fourth amendment rights. I find the fact that they’re trying to do so to be quite disturbing.

Comment #17: rivki  on  11/23  at  01:28 PM

But that’s it, preying. They warm you up with detectors that are less intrusive, and once you’re used to it, they add more. Duck-billed is right. There is no end game in this. They will, if not stopped, start strip-searching everyone.

The people “boycotting” by not flying are great, good for you. That’s not an option for most fliers. Very little flying is due to people on vacation. I fly a lot, and only twice in the past three years has it truly been non-optional. The rest is work-related or due to family obligations.

Comment #18: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/23  at  01:30 PM

catgirl, Re: children, aren’t metal detectors and bag searches used in many schools in the US? What I’m getting at is that the young are actually more accustomed to their right to privacy being flouted. Maybe that’s part of what makes Americans on average gradually more accepting of this stuff? Early indoctrination?

When I was in high school, I definitely felt like things went too far.  Maybe 5-10% of the teachers had major power issues, but that’s enough to make every day Hell. They would boss students around just to feel powerful, and make them do ridiculous things just to humiliate them.  And because most of us were under 18, we literally did not have rights.  Schools had the right to search any of my belongings, and even my body for any reason whatsoever.  They don’t have to call police in to do it, they don’t need a warrant, and they don’t even need probably cause.  And it’s all done in the name of safety, even though public schools are some of the safest places to be, statistically.  Even worse, school is mandatory so I couldn’t possibly opt out.  I really do think there aren’t enough safeguards to stop the minority of teachers from over-stepping their authority.  We’ve had plenty of posts about zero-tolerance policies here and why they are so bad.  I should probably just stop now because I could write pages about the lack of rights that students have inside schools and I don’t want to derail any further.  But I’m sure that the unquestioning obedience that is demanded of students contributes to making them more docile and apathetic.

Comment #19: bananacat  on  11/23  at  01:30 PM

Rivki, the scanners are associated with the pat downs, because they are! The pat downs were enhanced to force people to use the scanners. Some airports don’t have scanners, meaning all random searches involve a pat down.

Comment #20: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/23  at  01:32 PM

Thanks to my job, I have the pleasure of going through security theater practically everyday at work except for the rare days when I don’t need to go into a federal building. When I have to travel with my clients I tend to get the full treatment because many TSA people find it hard to believet that a young white man would be travelling with Chinese immigrants.

Comment #21: Lee  on  11/23  at  01:34 PM

O.K., full disclosure:  I am a white male.  I am not shy.  It doesn’t upset me for strangers to see me naked.  It wouldn’t upset me for someone to touch me inappropriately at an airport.  It upsets me a great deal the TSA thinks it has any legitimate authority to do those things.

Yes, thank you for pointing this out.  I’m a woman but theoretically a nudist.  From a practical standpoint, I almost always wear clothing to protect myself from cat claws.  However, plenty of people have seen me naked.  But it has always been my choice and on my terms.  I’m not ashamed of my genitals and breast, but that doesn’t mean the TSA gets to decide if they see them.  It sort of like how if I want to have sex with one man or 20 men, rape apologists will think that I’m obligated to have sex with any man who wants it.  No matter how often I choose to reveal my naked body or have sex, it’s always my choice.  You better believe that this is a manifestation of rape culture when plenty of TSA supporters are just telling others to stop being prudes or stop being shy.

Comment #22: bananacat  on  11/23  at  01:38 PM

So far we have enhanced pat-downs and enhanced interrogation.  I wonder what gets enhanced next?  Hint: it won’t be Democracy.

Comment #23: xebecs  on  11/23  at  01:38 PM

I am the very picture of white male privilege: I look like I have a tee time in 20 minutes. I flew last weekend and was, despite the fact that I was carrying a novel in Arabic in my hands, more or less waved through the scanner. Oddly, my colleague who runs peacenik anti-Israeli-gov’t demonstrations and my other colleague who is a Lebanese national (both 30something white women) were also more or less waved through. I’m not sure what to make of that. I’d like to think that next time I fly, I’ll wear a kilt and go regimental, but I probably won’t: it seems like sheer futility to make a stand for civil rights in this shitty country.

Comment #24: felagund  on  11/23  at  01:43 PM

Rivki, the scanners are associated with the pat downs, because they are! The pat downs were enhanced to force people to use the scanners. Some airports don’t have scanners, meaning all random searches involve a pat down.

Yeah, I know - I just didn’t want my post to be too long. It’s fucked up that the government is forcing us to undergo an unreasonable search (the scanner) by threatening us with an even more unreasonable search (the pat-down). And it seems like there have been a bunch of false positives so some people get to do both!

I just get annoyed because a lot of the surveys that the papers are reporting on only cover the machines, and then the results get generalized to the new security procedures which includes those lovely enhanced pat-downs. I think that’s overinflating the support for the new procedures (which are likely to stay inflated until people actually have to deal with them).

Comment #25: rivki  on  11/23  at  01:45 PM

I got waved past these things all last year.  Why?  I had a medical condition that made me appear pregnant, and I compensated for this by wearing smocky tops that fell from under the bust.

Took me a while to figure out why I got waved by when coworkers went through the machine.  No pat down, either. 

I get the impression that more than a few TSA employees are not very happy with this policy, either. For some, its sadism.  For others, it isn’t pleasant.

That said, one of the important ways they made it easier to spot terrorists was by making everybody feel comfortable and at ease so they can spot the nervous and anxious people.  This fucks up that very important advance in selecting out people with reason to be anxious, by making everyone nervous!

Comment #26: Ms Kate  on  11/23  at  01:51 PM

@ Theologian - Why am I at my most eloquent about things that make me want to curl up in the fetal position?

The TSA - and the companies who get awesome federal gravy from the TSA - aren’t stupid. There will be some kind of backing off during the uproar (and it wouldn’t surprise me if part of that backing off is an unwritten policy to avoid ‘randomly’ searching people like felagund). Of course, you’re not allowed to record or take pictures of airport security, so I’d imagine a few grad students with counters and notebooks would get harassed pretty quickly, too, so good luck proving they have a discriminatory policy. Meanwhile you can board ferries with absolutely no security whatsoever. Thank god. 

Amanda, do you really think they can be stopped?

Comment #27: the duck-billed placelot  on  11/23  at  02:01 PM

When I was in high school, I definitely felt like things went too far.  Maybe 5-10% of the teachers had major power issues, but that’s enough to make every day Hell. They would boss students around just to feel powerful, and make them do ridiculous things just to humiliate them.  Comment #19: catgirl on 11/23 at 12:30 PM

Thanks to a sadistic junior high school phys ed teacher I know exactly what you mean.  We had to twirl around naked in the shower “to show you were actually getting clean” and she really did watch carefully.  Ugh.

I should probably just stop now because I could write pages about the lack of rights that students have inside schools and I don’t want to derail any further.  But I’m sure that the unquestioning obedience that is demanded of students contributes to making them more docile and apathetic.

The number of students who believe stuff like “yes you have freedom of speech but you have to use it responsibly or it should be taken away” with “responsibly’ meaning “don’t make anyone upset” is depressing.  These students become adults who are similarly uncomfortable with freedom.

It’s probably no different now than it was at any other time.

Comment #28: oldfeminist  on  11/23  at  02:02 PM

I got waved past these things all last year.  Why?  I had a medical condition that made me appear pregnant, and I compensated for this by wearing smocky tops that fell from under the bust.

So wouldn’t this make it pretty easy for a terrorist to just put the contraband under her shirt and pretend she’s pregnant?  Not only would she get past the screening, but she’d even have a convenient way to carry a lot of bad stuff.

This is one major reason that this security theater is not effective.  No matter how invasive you go, they can always find a loophole.

Comment #29: bananacat  on  11/23  at  02:11 PM

I also hate all the arguments that we need to “sacrifice” for our country and this is for everyone’s safety and blah blah blah.

Of course it’s necessary.  If you don’t get used to accepting the arbitrary exercise of intrusive power, however will you accept your role as a serf in the new corporate feudal order?

Comment #30: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/23  at  02:19 PM

Also, the supposed reason for the “enhanced patdowns”/“scatter scan” is to detect the explosive PETN, which was used by the crotch bomber of a year ago as well as in the apparent “dry run” of an attack a couple of weeks back, with the printer cartridges. The metal detectors are no longer considered enough security because they don’t detect PETN. In addition, even bomb sniffing dogs are not always able to detect it.

So now we are looking under people’s clothes and feeling their bodies in an effort to detect this stuff. But what if someone simply swallows the PETN or sticks it up their ass, like a drug mule? Are we now going to force everyone to vomit before getting on a plane? The more you think about it, there is literally no end to the possibilities if a potential terrorist is sufficiently clever and/or willing to undergo pain. And you have to assume that someone who’s ready to kill themselves in order to strike a blow against the US, is also willing to undergo pain!

So Amanda’s absolutely right, there is no endgame on this, because there is almost no way to ever be totally safe, and furthermore it’s not clear the TSA was ever meant to actually make people safe anyway.

Comment #31: atheist  on  11/23  at  02:25 PM

On the children thing:
grooming

Yes, I said it. How do we teach children that it’s unreasonable for other authority figures to demand that kind of touch but TSA officers can?

@29: And you know what? Since 9/11, we’ve seen terrorists exploit the attention we spent on airports with attacks on:
1) hotels
2) rail systems
3) buses
4) public places

Comment #32: CBrachyrhynchos  on  11/23  at  02:27 PM

And not to mention, the multiple cases of ideologically motivated killers with civilian small arms running amok.

Comment #33: CBrachyrhynchos  on  11/23  at  02:35 PM

I think this whole conservative outrage fits well with my belief that being right for the wrong reasons makes you wrong.  Like you said Amanda, it has a lot to do with white male privalege, but it also has to do with Islamophobia.  I also find it ironic that these are the same people who said nothing about persecuting Muslims and now that it’s their body, they want privacy.

Comment #34: Albert Cirrus  on  11/23  at  02:42 PM

Apparently an enterprising individual is now selling tungsten-lined, and therefore scan-proof underpants.

Comment #35: atheist  on  11/23  at  02:52 PM

@atheist: Even making us vomit would miss the explosives if they’d been swallowed far enough in advance in regular drug mule fashion. The only way to get at them would be to lock us in rooms and feed us laxatives.

Sure swallowing the stuff is a pain, but if you’re so hell-bent on killing someone you’re willing to take yourself out with them, it probably won’t give you a second’s pause.

Comment #36: JThompson  on  11/23  at  02:52 PM

The people “boycotting” by not flying are great, good for you. That’s not an option for most fliers. Very little flying is due to people on vacation. I fly a lot, and only twice in the past three years has it truly been non-optional. The rest is work-related or due to family obligations.

Amanda, yeah, I know that not flying is not an option for many people. When I said I wouldn’t fly unless I had to, I really did just mean that was what I personally would be doing. Not that everyone should just boycott flying, like that was some kind of easy solution. I’m lucky in that I don’t have to fly very often.

catgirl @ 22, yeah, I am so annoyed with the response “What, you think your body is so special? Stop being such a prude/so full of yourself.” That is so not the point. Whether these people are personally okay with the TSA seeing them naked or touching their private parts is not the point. The point is that many people are not okay with it, and they have a right to be.

Comment #37: snowmentality  on  11/23  at  02:53 PM

In a country where the Supreme Court is chock full of Reichwing ideologues, does anyone honestly think we have a prayer of returning sanity and eliminating Security Theater?

Hitstory shows stuff like this only increases, and hardly ever decreases, until something catastrophic happens (loss in war, revolution, regime-change-not-otherwise-specified) to the government promoting it.

In a nation where the Truly Wealthy and Deserving needn’t bother with travel on public airlines (flying via private jet, either owned, leased, or rented at great cost), how can we expect those unburdened by these humiliating measures — but who have the majority of the political power — to be bothered to think about the lives of their fellow humans?

Not. Gonna. Happen.

The frog of American Privacy is about half-boiled already.  It’s a little too late to stop it now…

(BTW, I used to be amazed when all the Buford T. Redneck gun-worshiping-wingnuts were unglued over theoretical assaults on their rights to own and wield guns, but perfectly okay with actual phone taps, illegal imprisonment, torture, security theater, etc.  Until I realized what just what Amanda is talking about. 

When it’s happening to others, it’s great.  Just don’t touch them, call them racists, or even breathe a word about gun restrictions, and they’ll happily go along with any restriction no matter how asinine. 

This is because of their undying allegiance to timeless and fundamental values, and a deep love and respect for the critically important principles this great nation was founded on: Freedom and Liberty and the Rule of Law! 

Ha, ha, ha…)

Comment #38: MikeEss  on  11/23  at  03:13 PM

I dont mind body scanners and even moderate pat downs because I dont want to blow up 100,000 feet in the air. However yeah I dont like knowing that the guy whose doing the pat down is probably doing some sort of high fiving in his head to his imaginary frat dudes about being able to either “accidentally” touch a womans breasts or deliberately touch them….under the guise of security of course! I think if they can help it they should have women do pat downs on women. I also always thought the ‘junk fixation, ’ had more to do with homophobia than anything since it sounds like they simply dont want a guy to touch their junk and they worry that if they were to get a pat down a guy would touch their junk. I doubt it would be less fixated on if a woman was touching their “junk” because guys are always supposed to show that they like having their junk touched by women.

Comment #39: BeanS  on  11/23  at  03:23 PM

@Comment #38: MikeEss on 11/23 at 01:13 PM

(BTW, I used to be amazed when all the Buford T. Redneck gun-worshiping-wingnuts were unglued over theoretical assaults on their rights to own and wield guns, but perfectly okay with actual phone taps, illegal imprisonment, torture, security theater, etc.  Until I realized what just what Amanda is talking about.

Also, notice the rhyme? Keep your hands off my gun/keep your hands off my dick?

Comment #40: atheist  on  11/23  at  03:25 PM

In a country where the Supreme Court is chock full of Reichwing ideologues, does anyone honestly think we have a prayer of returning sanity and eliminating Security Theater?

Hitstory shows stuff like this only increases, and hardly ever decreases, until something catastrophic happens (loss in war, revolution, regime-change-not-otherwise-specified) to the government promoting it.

Maybe, maybe not (via comment on Balloon Juice, I think).

Comment #41: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/23  at  03:33 PM

I also find it somewhat ironic that you have so many American men getting upset about invasions of privacy, but how many of these men are opposed to abortion rights for women?

Comment #42: BeanS  on  11/23  at  03:36 PM

BeanS, privacy for me (privileged white male christianist), but none for thee (everyone else).

Very simple…

Comment #43: MikeEss  on  11/23  at  03:43 PM

Testicles are important, BeanS…

Comment #44: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/23  at  03:43 PM

I’m actually slightly hopeful to see Americans FINALLY get fed up with the loss of their civil liberties.

Of course, all the local press is all about interviewing the assholes who are happy to say “Whatever it takes to be safe”

I will not be letting my children fly anywhere for the near future.  When the girls get their teeth x-rayed, they get lead liners to protect their organs.  They’re NOT getting radiated for theatre, and they’re not getting groped either, although apparently the groping procedure for those under 12 is different.  Not that I’d expect the average TSA to know better.

I really thought when Obama was elected we might be able to stop taking our shoes off.  But then I thought I voted for change…

Comment #45: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/23  at  03:44 PM

#26 Ms Kate, that is such an excellent point!

Comment #46: Olivia  on  11/23  at  03:56 PM

Not to imply that these measures are motivated by any kind of quasi-rational thought process, but there’s two things that I find particularly stupid about the new scanners:

(1) There are actually two kinds: backscatter X-ray and millimeter wave.  Only in the first is one exposed to ionizing radiation, and however modest the amount of radiation involved, it seems like a no-brainer to just deploy the millimeter wave machines.  (I think Michael Chertoff is now a lobbyist for the maker of the backscatter X-machines…)

(2) Keeping modest weapons like makeshift knives out of an airport is simply impossible (you can’t keep them out prisons, after all).  The existing metal detector should catch any firearms hidden on a person’s body, and so the only real point of the whole-body imagers is to try to detect explosives.  For that, I think it would make much more sense to install the noninvasive “puffer” machines, where they blow air at you and then sample it for explosive residues.  Wikipedia says that the ones the TSA originally purchased has maintenance problems, though

Comment #47: topometropolis  on  11/23  at  03:58 PM

I dont mind body scanners and even moderate pat downs because I dont want to blow up 100,000 feet in the air.

One of your assumptions is flawed.  Doing these things doesn’t actually make us safer.

Comment #48: bananacat  on  11/23  at  04:02 PM

#31 Atheist, the TSA has made a statement that they do not have plans to implement body cavity searches. How sad it is that they had to say that.

Comment #49: Olivia  on  11/23  at  04:06 PM

I doubt it would be less fixated on if a woman was touching their “junk” because guys are always supposed to show that they like having their junk touched by women.
Comment #39: BeanS on 11/23 at 02:23 PM

They would have to be good-looking women.  Who couldn’t actually stop them if they found bombs or contraband.

See, when men claim “I’d be happy if women catcalled me on the street,” they’re not picturing women their mom’s age, or “fat chicks,” or women who have actual power over them.  They conflate “female” with “powerless” when conceptualizing, but the reality would be quite different.

The latest SNL had a skit that sort of touched on this, where they start with good-looking women suggestively talking about being TSA agents, and then you see the real agents, who are all men, and not great-looking.

Comment #50: oldfeminist  on  11/23  at  04:07 PM

It is instructive what makes people upset. Torture, racial profiling, wire-tapping, getting rid of habeus corpus, allowing the killing of citizens without trial all happened and there was no big outcry (and pretty much all of this was approved by conservatives). But if ‘they’ have to go through with this, why that’s an outrage.

Comment #51: JohnL  on  11/23  at  04:15 PM

BeanS, you have a better chance of dying in a car accident on the way to airport than you do of dying in a terrorist-bombing incident on a plane.

And even with all the security theater protocols, what actually stopped the recent bombing attempts on planes?  Actual proactive passengers, not the dumb shit you have to go through to get on the plane.  Times have changed for terrorists.  When what they wanted was to hijack your plane for political purposes, it made sense to sit quietly and follow directions and try to keep a low profile.  When their plan shifted to where people now know they just want to kill everyone, the passengers in the plane FIGHT BACK if some guy tries something.  Notice there haven’t been attempts on planes lately, and I doubt it’s because our security is so awesome.  It’s because the terrorists know the person sitting next to them will STOP THEM or die trying.

I have no problem with these searches if you have some probable-cause reason to do so.  Just randomly picking people out of the line?  No, thank you.  Go back to regular metal detectors and throw some dogs into the mix and let the chips fall.

Comment #52: speedbudget  on  11/23  at  04:31 PM

atheist @31:
But what if someone simply swallows the PETN or sticks it up their ass, like a drug mule? Are we now going to force everyone to vomit before getting on a plane?

The article you linked to says that someone has done exactly that: “...a suicide bomber put some up his anus and used it in an attempt to assassinate the son of the Saudi minister…” That article seems to lay out a clear justification for these new procedures, and correctly notes that the question is not “is this justified” but “is this worth it?”

I don’t know. I personally do not find it that intrusive to go through the body scanner - though I haven’t gone through the procedures yet and everyone who has seems to start her story with, “I didn’t think I’d find it that intrusive…” Maybe I’ll change my tune after flying tomorrow.

Using that same logic, though, maybe those who find it too intrusive would change their tune if we ended the new procedures and then a plane went down.

Comment #53: antiope  on  11/23  at  04:33 PM

My question of the day, wouldn’t would be terrorists be happy about these new techniques? I mean, if their goal is to disrupt the US, look around, given the opt out plan tomorrow, they’ve accomplished that goal. And, if the plan is to kill as many people as possible, wouldn’t they wait until they get in the middle of the security line, before being patted down or going through an xray machine, and set a bomb off there? More people in line at security during the busy travel season than actually on one plane. So, again, what is the f*cking point? We are having our civil liberties taken away, without actually increasing safety in any way whatsoever.

I had this arguement yesterday with a friend who said it makes her feel safer. I said rather than feeling safer, I’d actually like to BE safer, by investing these dollars in catching would be terrorists before they ever get to the airport. I don’t know which talking head said it yesterday, but if a terrorist actually gets to the airport to complete these plans, that means they have already gotten by every other intelligence measure we have in place, and we’re relying on TSA agents to save the country. I just can’t imagine the lack of critical thinking it takes to be okay with this.

Comment #54: Awkward  on  11/23  at  04:51 PM

Don’t fuck with the privileged, man.

Internet win.

Comment #55: blondie  on  11/23  at  04:56 PM

#45 caren sun-blocking,
I don’t think it’s so much Americans getting fed up with loss of civil liberties but simply don’t like taking their shoes off. You’ll still have these people for example opposing abortion rights, same-sex marriage, shoving THEIR religion and THEIR interpretation of their religion down everyone’s throat, ect. It seems a little too optimistic to say it’s about civil rights.

Comment #56: BeanS  on  11/23  at  04:56 PM

Oh yes, antiope. 

NOW SHOW US SOME STATISTICS THAT THIS BULLSHIT WORKS!

Do we see any evidence that they have put TSA people through the lines and caught them? NO
Do we see the shoe bomber and underwear bomber being caught? NO

To spend this much money and inconvenience we need way more than your YOU’LL BE SORRRRYYY ninny bullshit.

Comment #57: Ms Kate  on  11/23  at  05:01 PM

#48,
We all take our shoes off thanks to the shoe bomber. If they didn’t notice his shoes on fire then they would’ve been blown up. I don’t want any more shoe bombers and who knows how many were prevented from being employed simply due to shoe checks? It’s not like they came up with the idea to do shoe checks out of thin air. So I argue that it does make us safer. I like knowing that the person sitting next to me isn’t planning anythig sneaky. I mean, how would you have felt if the person sitting next to you, stood up and detonated a bomb? Even if it’s only 1 in 1 million planes you still don’t want to be on THAT one plane.

Comment #58: BeanS  on  11/23  at  05:03 PM

#57,
Maybe it’s from deterrence? Perhaps you see it from deterrence where we dont have another attempted shoe bomber. I mean, what are they supposed to do? Terrorists figure out ways to try and harm Americans and then security types have to scramble to try and figure out ways to prevent it. Are we supposed to just let them bomb us and let our hijacked planes hit others?

Comment #59: BeanS  on  11/23  at  05:07 PM

I dont mind body scanners and even moderate pat downs because I dont want to blow up 100,000 feet in the air.

Not even concorde flew that high.

Comment #60: James  on  11/23  at  05:08 PM

#52,
I don’t think theyre really all about OUR safety so much as they dont want white houses smacked into, buildings collapsed and pentagons destroyed. I also dont care if I have a higher chance of dying in a car accident. Terrorists arent aiming for cars. I think a better analogy is what is the chance that I’ll die in a car accident from a random passenger that just decides to blow up my car while driving it into a building? This is weirdly one of the only subjects I happen to see the same agreement on between right wingers and left wingers.

Comment #61: BeanS  on  11/23  at  05:11 PM

#60,
It was a exaggerative estimation. I’m not a pilot. I should’ve just wrote 1 billion miles in the air so it would be more noticable.

Comment #62: BeanS  on  11/23  at  05:13 PM

catgirl, Re: children, aren’t metal detectors and bag searches used in many schools in the US? What I’m getting at is that the young are actually more accustomed to their right to privacy being flouted. Maybe that’s part of what makes Americans on average gradually more accepting of this stuff? Early indoctrination?

This is something that kind of bothers me when we as a people start discussing privacy.  Nobody seems to understand the difference between real privacy (i.e. the perception we have of being private) and legal privacy (i.e. the standard which the government or others cannot cross lest they face criminal charges).  Once we leave the privacy of our private property the government and others basically get the right to poke and prod us sadly.  We’re left open by the way privacy laws are written because nobody in the 18th century thought the government was going to search their wagons or satchels, it just didn’t happen on a scale that mattered. 

Children fundamentally in our system have practically no rights to anything.  Being minors the school district and parents assume guardianship (depending on the time and place) and thus have no privacy rights.  Metal detectors really aren’t an invasion or privacy though, they detect metal and as long as they aren’t hidden can be avoided if one chooses.  The bag searches I had done as a teenager a few times along with the drug sweeps with dogs.  Hilarity ensued when somebody threw a lock on my locker I never used and a dog smelled something…long fun time with the police that day.  But I didn’t have a right to privacy within that school.  I was in a public place using a public locker.  Though it turned out to be some old lunch somebody through in there, it wasn’t something I could obstruct legally.

As for body scanners and this pat down.  I agree it is all part of security theater, it is an illusion of safety to please the masses.  But to be fair the people who invent these things are probably very serious people who think they’re doing worthy work.  This needs to be looked at in the view of effective vs ineffective instead of wrong or right since wrong or right justifies some procedures instead of invalidating the whole system.

Comment #63: Xeranar  on  11/23  at  05:16 PM

BeanS, I think you’re operating under a mistaken premise- the shoe bomb didn’t work, so other things are going to be tried, yet we’re still reacting to the shoe bomber. If you don’t want terrorists to accomplish these goals, then we actually need to be proactive rather than reactive. We need to anticipate and use intelligence gathering methods (with note taken for problems here) to stop would be terrorists. This foolish notion that they are still only trying to take down planes is insanity. If we know their goal (to kill as many Americans as possible, presumably), then we need to look at where/ when they would do this. You’re going to get more people on the subway, or in a stadium than on a plane. Yet, where are we still focusing our efforts? It’s ridiculous. Critical thinking caps on now, please. (That’s not aimed at you, just a general request).

Comment #64: Awkward  on  11/23  at  05:17 PM

BeanS,

You don’t take your shoes off when you get onto a bus, train, or subway.  Do you feel scared when you ride any of those because the person next to you might have a shoe bomb?  Hell, most of those things don’t even metal detectors so the person next to you could have a gun.  Why aren’t you as afraid of them?

Comment #65: bananacat  on  11/23  at  05:18 PM

Based on the tyranny of numbers—there were 621,000,000 passengers boarding flights in the United States alone from September 1, 2009-August 31, 2010.  The average delay for security theater/screening is 10 minutes:  6,210,000,000 man-minutes were spent waiting in line.  That equates to just under 12,000 man-years.

If we assume the average passenger on a flight has 50 years of life left, and the average 757 has 120 passengers, then economically we’re losing the equivalent of two 737 crashes per year in waiting in line for security theater.

Comment #66: James  on  11/23  at  05:19 PM

Ms Kate,

I actually wasn’t taking a position on this one way or the other, so I wasn’t presenting a “YOU’LL BE SORRRRYYY ninny bullshit” argument. I do see why they’re doing this - the PETN explosive that is easy to hide in/on your body - that’s seems pretty straightforward and easy to understand. But I don’t know how to make the cost/benefit calculation. Really. I just don’t know how to evaluate whether or not these procedures are worth it. If we look at what we do to prevent other casualties - car accidents, for example - clearly this is over the top. That sort of established standard at least gives me something to measure against. But the political and emotional issues surrounding terrorism also put it in a very unique category, so….like I said, I’m just really not sure. And, as I noted in my post, I haven’t been through the procedures myself yet so it’s especially hard for me to judge them.

As for your questions:
Do we see any evidence that they have put TSA people through the lines and caught them? NO

I’m not sure I follow this. Are you asking whether they’ve used TSA people to test the system, like sending them through with PETN hidden in certain ways? If so, I don’t know the answer to that. It seems like an obvious thing to do but I don’t think bureaucracies like this always work in the smartest, most efficient ways.

Do we see the shoe bomber and underwear bomber being caught? NO

They didn’t have the scanners and more intrusive procedures back then, so that question doesn’t make sense. They are putting these procedures in place as a response to the underwear bomber (and others).

Comment #67: antiope  on  11/23  at  05:23 PM

BeanS,  I don’t want to sit where some irrational fraidy pants has pissed their seat in fear, either.

Stay off planes.  Until I see some actual statistics for these systems: test numbers, false positives, false negatives, precision,accuracy ... I’m not going to consider them any more justified and fundable than plans to blow smoke into our ears as a prevention for scurvy.

Put up or shut up - and leave the flying to the grownups.  Bake a flag cake or something.

Comment #68: Ms Kate  on  11/23  at  05:23 PM

Even if it’s only 1 in 1 million planes you still don’t want to be on THAT one plane.

The human inability to weigh risks accurately and thus take sensible, proportional precautions is one of the things that government is supposed to compensate for, not pile on top of. Americans refuse to wear helmets or stop smoking or stop driving so damn much even though any of those three measures would lower an individual’s likelyhood of dying prematurely. But we’re supposed to let strangers grope us because it makes some people feel safer? Yeah, it sucks when you’re that one in a billion, but that doesn’t mean that sexually assaulting passangers at random is a) going to prevent that freak incident or b) worth preventing the freak incident.  Dying at the hands of a terrorist rather than in a car accident still leads to the same result - you’re dead.

I do not want to live in a country where the incredibly small chance of a terrorist act strips me of all my constitutional rights. There needs to always be a balance between preventing terrorism (or crime or whatever) and protecting individual rights. That balance has been struck in criminal procedure for a long time and the law of search and seizure is well established (if often violated, but that’s for another post). Terrorism is not so special that we should sacrifice our rights on the alter of “maybe this will make us safer.” Taking off shoes and going through a metal detector is a small nuisance, but it’s not invasive. It’s worth it to do that to keep guns and knives off planes. Having one’s naked image recorded or one’s body groped is a serious invasion of privacy and a violation of our basic rights. The small chance that such procedures may frustrate an attack is not enough to balance out the loss of constitutional rights.

Comment #69: rivki  on  11/23  at  05:28 PM

I should add, it actually is not clear to me whether the scanners can detect PETN inside the body. Most of the articles I’ve read seem to assume that they do. Anyone know for sure? I’ll keep googling…

Comment #70: antiope  on  11/23  at  05:30 PM

The people “boycotting” by not flying are great, good for you. That’s not an option for most fliers. Very little flying is due to people on vacation. I fly a lot, and only twice in the past three years has it truly been non-optional. The rest is work-related or due to family obligations.

I am one of them.  I am also one the privileged white males, and probably at the more elite end when it comes to flying; after an incident in 1998 my physician has required me to fly first class for flights longer than three hours for reasons of health.

This upcoming weekend, I am driving from San Francisco to Portland, Oregon.  It will be more expensive than flying (and with the forecast of ice on the Siskiyous on Sunday, potentially more dangerous) but much less stressful. 

Earlier this year, I took the train across the country to visit my parents in New Jersey…  Again, more expensive that a first class flight, but less stressful.

I suspect there will be a point when I need to fly again, but it will probably be overseas.

Comment #71: James  on  11/23  at  05:31 PM

I should add, it actually is not clear to me whether the scanners can detect PETN inside the body. Most of the articles I’ve read seem to assume that they do. Anyone know for sure? I’ll keep googling…

At the current level, they do not.  But if you crank up the radiation to a lethal dose, it can detect the PETN.

Comment #72: James  on  11/23  at  05:36 PM

@James

But if you crank up the radiation to a lethal dose, it can detect the PETN.

Bonus!  The “evul muslin terrist” will then be dead/dying and we won’t have to worry about the imprisonment and prosecution governmental clusterfucks.

Comment #73: Atheist, A Feminist  on  11/23  at  05:45 PM

You know what’s really ironic?  When air travel first became popular, it was successful because it was such a fast way to travel.  Now with this security theater, it’s common to spend as much time waiting as actually being in the air.  Aventuall it will only be time-efficient for overseas travel.

Comment #74: bananacat  on  11/23  at  05:49 PM

James:
At the current level, they do not.  But if you crank up the radiation to a lethal dose, it can detect the PETN.

Well in that case the cost/benefit calculation seems pretty easy.

What’s the problem with those puffer machines then? Do they not detect PETN, or are they worried a terrorist would be just that good at washing it all off?

Comment #75: antiope  on  11/23  at  06:03 PM

Bonus!  The “evul muslin terrist” will then be dead/dying and we won’t have to worry about the imprisonment and prosecution governmental clusterfucks.

And clearly only terrorists would die!  I wonder if they weigh more than a duck?

Comment #76: rivki  on  11/23  at  06:08 PM

@14 and 32:

This is the thing that keeps striking me. I have a quasi-niece and -nephew who have been raised from the beginning that people aren’t allowed to touch your body without your permission—any people, whether they’re relatives or teachers or anyone. Now, we’re suddenly telling them that if they’re wearing a uniform and say they have a good excuse, you have to let them touch you however and wherever they want. Little E is three years old—it’s a dangerous time to tell her her body doesn’t belong to her. (And she’s so adorable, too. Periodically, new people she meets will be earnestly told, “You can’t touch my body.” God, I hope she stays with that.)

Moving on: I was intrigued by this story in The Atlantic that has been popping up recently about how easily foiled TSA security really is. Of course, the article was written back in 2008, so security procedures have changed some, but it would appear that all of the dumbest terrorists could carry on enough to take down a plane without raising an eyebrow. So, no, I’m not interested in giving up my civil liberties and having my body violated in the name of air safety. Show me that you’re preventing terrorism—and not just creating smarter terrorists—and then we’ll talk.

Comment #77: ACG  on  11/23  at  06:14 PM

I think the puffer machines are a great idea.  I don’t know what the limit of detection for those is, but I work in the defense industry and you won’t get rid of trace explosives with just a good washing, especially since you have to touch the package to put it under your clothes.

Comment #78: bananacat  on  11/23  at  06:15 PM

And now I wonder whether we’re not all just being sucked into the news cycle’s outrage of the week…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-22/tsa-body-scan-pat-down-policy-sparks-media-frenzy/

I’m looking forward to my trip tomorrow - can’t wait to see this all with my own eyes.

Comment #79: antiope  on  11/23  at  06:23 PM

No surprise: TSA Agents Absolutely Hate New Pat Downs, Find Them Disgusting And Morale Breaking
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101119/10225611947/tsa-agents-absolutely-hate-new-pat-downs-find-them-disgusting-morale-breaking.shtml


Except for TSA employees on the look out for teenage girls:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1147497-tso-saying-heads-up-got-cutie-you.html

Comment #80: judybrowni  on  11/23  at  06:23 PM

And clearly only terrorists would die!

Alternatively, I’d be pretty freaked out by dead people all over the airport. So that kind of makes them posthumous terrorists, whoever they were before the radiation blast. smile

Comment #81: Bagelsan  on  11/23  at  06:24 PM

#74,
Well, blame the terrorists. What are security organizations supposed to do?The swinging 60’s arent the 21st century.

#65,
I AM afraid of being on subways (but like planes I still use them). It seems because of the security measures taken on airplanes, they might aim for subways and then what happens? Then I guess we have what we have at airports-maybe/hopefully something more innovative? I worry about that even before 9/11 simply because theyre alot of sick people out there.

#64 yes I think we should be more proactive. I completely agree with that but in the mean time what are we supposed to do? We are still responding to the shoe bomber, heck were still responding to 9/11 because it’s still a possibility. Dont think that if we stopped doing shoe checks that they wouldnt try it again. I think you touched on a very pertinent point in regards to other proactive behavior. How long is this terror war going to last? I put more promise in the Democrats fighting it rationally and more sophisticatedly but whenever we get a Republican in office they always corrupt it or turn it into a He-Man show for money. The Democrats I think arent freed to do whats necessary because many of their electorate dont want any war-they wouldnt want war even if it was WW2 and I think they pander too much to them. Seriously, I’d like to get this war over and done with and win. 

#68 Jebus ms kate, you sure youre not a teabagger? With that amount of irrational hostility I’m going to assume you are until you show yourself capable of higher level thinking and discourse. So my advice to you, after telling me to go bake a “flag cake” is to go and run wild about paranoid government conspiracies, black helicopters and fluoride in your water. Speak liberal or quit posting. “Blah blah blah, garble, garble, garble, grrrrr” doesnt work but for those on The O’Reilly Show. Youre no different from right wing posters whove written to me the exact same way when I’ve expressed the same sentiments. I mean, come out of the political closet kate and embrace your love of Glenn Beck, militia groups and hard core zubaz American flag pants.

Comment #82: BeanS  on  11/23  at  06:37 PM

So Amanda’s absolutely right, there is no endgame on this, because there is almost no way to ever be totally safe, and furthermore it’s not clear the TSA was ever meant to actually make people safe anyway.

I heard an interesting point made the other night on MSNBC regarding the security theater silliness… if an AQ member or sympathizer who genuinely intends to execute a terrorist attack on an airplane makes it as far as even getting into the airport, our intelligence system has already failed.

There’s an unfortunate Catch-22 to all of this for the Obama Administration. Eliminate these silly TSA protocols and everyone will be happy for awhile, but the next time a Richard Reid or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab manages to get by security and onto a plane, people like Liz Cheney and Frank Gaffney will be screaming for Obama’s impeachment. And that’s assuming the situation is effectively defused before real harm is done as was the case with both Reid and Abdulmutallab.

Damned is you do, damned if you don’t. I think the reality is that we have to come to accept that no amount of security protocols can ever be implemented which will provide a 100% guarantee that nothing bad could ever happen.

One thing that doesn’t get stated nearly enough is that we are very likely giving Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants precisely what they want with this security theater. The primary goal of terrorism is to terrorize those who are being targetted by the terrorists. For an operation that cost maybe a few hundred thousand dollars and the lives of 19 willing fanatics armed with boxcutters, Osama bin Laden has gotten a massive return on his investment. The United States has literally spent trillions of dollars as a direct reaction to what happened on that terrible September day nine years ago, and we really aren’t a whole lot safer today because of it. If someone is willing to literally kill themselves in order to bring about harm against others, there is very little that can be done to completely neutralize them - they have absolutely nothing to lose.

As for the teabagger douches, they have no real moral objection to TSA fondling unless it is happening to them. They aren’t hiding the fact that they would have no problem with continuing the gropefest, provided that it is brown people who look like they might be Muslim being groped.

Comment #83: DTGslu2K  on  11/23  at  06:40 PM

#77,
“Show me that you’re preventing terrorism-and not just creating smarter terrorists”

Yeah I think they should avoid that. Better training of TSA. I think we need professionals, newer methods of detection, newer equipment methods and smarter strategies for all the other vulnerable hot spots like subways and train stations. I’m surprised they havent thought of much anything good. I swear the Men in Blacks props crew could probably think of something savvier!

Comment #84: BeanS  on  11/23  at  06:43 PM

I think this is a great post and great comments.

One thing I do think is important to take out of this that it should be possible to understand the ugly overtones of some of the protests (i.e., that impositions on Muslims and “others” are perfectly fine, but don’t do anything that inconveniences white people in any way!) while also understanding that the more invasive these searches are, the more people are rightly going to be concerned with civil liberties. In that regard, I get the feeling that there are some folks at the TSA who basically would approve cavity searches of airline passengers if they received intelligence that terrorists were considering putting bombs in their asses.

For better or worse, this is the first time that the American public has really pushed back against the expansion of the “security state” post-9/11. They may be doing it for the wrong reasons, but it still is an important moment.

Comment #85: Dilan Esper  on  11/23  at  06:52 PM

@Comment #85: Dilan Esper on 11/23 at 04:52 PM

For better or worse, this is the first time that the American public has really pushed back against the expansion of the “security state” post-9/11. They may be doing it for the wrong reasons, but it still is an important moment.

Good point.

Comment #86: atheist  on  11/23  at  07:00 PM

I would just like to point out something that has nothing to do with Amanda’s brilliant observation that this issue did not rise to the level of notice until white men felt violated.  My point has more to do with pragmatism.  This theater takes a really long time.  The last time I flew out of Austin Bergstrom (which, mind you, is far from the behemoth airports in New York, LA, Chicago, Atlanta or Miami) there were easily 250 people standing in line to get processed.  There had been no searches up until that point.  No bomb sniffing dogs.  Nothing.  If I was a terrorist, then that would be my target.  And no amount of irradiation or humiliation would have stopped me.

Here’s the simple truth of terrorism: you can’t do shit about it.  If someone wants very badly to blow up a bunch of people, then they’ll do it outside the stores having Black Friday sales, or the food court of a mall on a busy Saturday, or a sporting event, or the line of people waiting to get processed at an airport.  It’s a fact of modern life, and it’s scary.  But you live with it, and you don’t let it rule you.  Because the minute you start letting the ever present threat of terrorism, then you’ve lost.  And my fellow Americans, I have to tell you that threat existed before 9/11 and doesn’t always come with a prayer mat.  Ask OKC.

Accept it.  Be smart, but not fearful.  And just deal.

Comment #87: electricgrendel  on  11/23  at  07:03 PM

The last time I flew out of Austin Bergstrom (which, mind you, is far from the behemoth airports in New York, LA, Chicago, Atlanta or Miami) there were easily 250 people standing in line to get processed.  There had been no searches up until that point.  No bomb sniffing dogs.  Nothing.  If I was a terrorist, then that would be my target.  And no amount of irradiation or humiliation would have stopped me.

It is not like there isn’t any precedent.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rome_and_Vienna_airport_attacks

With cheap guns and almost no control over getting them at gun shows and the like, I am actually surprised this hasn’t happened.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_110

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre

Comment #88: James  on  11/23  at  07:12 PM

@83

I heard an interesting point made the other night on MSNBC regarding the security theater silliness… if an AQ member or sympathizer who genuinely intends to execute a terrorist attack on an airplane makes it as far as even getting into the airport, our intelligence system has already failed.

And to me, that raises a question: How many people could a terrorist take out clustered in line to get security-groped? An A-320’s worth? A 737? What’s the point of taking off our shoes when the large part of the government’s anti-terror efforts are weak to useless? I don’t want to die falling out of the sky or standing in line. But I also don’t want to give up all my rights and live in a police state because the world is too darn scary.

Comment #89: ACG  on  11/23  at  07:25 PM

First, the scanners are not effective.

It is quite clear that a lot of explosives can make it through these machines.  A British MP who worked on the milimeter wave machines reported that they would not have caught the underwear bomber, and that they were not capable of detecting chemicals or light plastics.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240193/Body-scanner-wouldnt-foiled-syringe-bomber-says-MP-worked-new-machines.html

Also, the backscatter machines can’t detect anything hidden in folds of the body.  Plus, check out the four-page letter from some UCSF MD and three PhD’s, talking about the risk of the backscatter x-ray.  http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf 

I have always been opposed to this screening for privacy reasons—the machines were invented to prevent inmates from having to be strip-searched all the time, but I don’t believe in suspicionless, virtual strip searches. 

rivki,

I am loving all of your comments.  Loving.  Glad I wasn’t drinking soda when I got to the duck.

BTW, gravy floats . . .  small rocks . . . sorry.  smile

Comment #90: Ismone  on  11/23  at  07:41 PM

BeanS, demanding accountability - standard statistics for Christ’s sake, stuff that EVERY screening procedure needs to demonstrate to justify widespread use (mammography?  prostate tests? hellfuckinglo!) - is hardly “irrational”.

Stop pissing your pants over theoretical terrorists and grow a spine.  Otherwise, if you win the terrorists do.  Therefore ...

Comment #91: Ms Kate  on  11/23  at  07:53 PM

BTW, “tewwowists ah scawwyyy.  wahhhh” isn’t a rational response to anything.  Statistics on efficacy of the approach or STFU.

Comment #92: Ms Kate  on  11/23  at  07:56 PM

BeanS: Actually, you take your shoes off thanks to the US government’s desire for security theater.  In Canadian airports, you don’t take your shoes off unless they look like they’ll set off the metal detector or they look big enough to hide a decent-sized bomb.  That seems reasonable; going beyond that and making everyone take off their shoes, even low sneakers, is pure theater.  (Before someone who just flew from Canada to the US contradicts me: the checkpoints for US departures follow US rules for shoe removal, presumably at the TSA’s insistence.)

Comment #93: Trackless  on  11/23  at  07:57 PM

Where can I get a small waldo doll for my next business trip ...

Comment #94: Ms Kate  on  11/23  at  08:02 PM

But the political and emotional issues surrounding terrorism also put it in a very unique category,

NO, they really don’t.  Politicians use terrorism lies to terrify people into giving up their rights, but the practical matter is no different.

I’m sick to death of cowards.

If we told everyone to keep their shoes on, WE’D BE BETTER OFF.  Bin Laden has already won.  Most Americans have willingly sacrificed their 4th amendment rights for the pretense of safety.  There’s no evidence that these machines are safe, much less that they will protect us.  There’s more than enough evidence that they are offensive and making air flight and interstate travel unnecessarily arduous.

Comment #95: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/23  at  08:03 PM

Trackless, I usually take my shoes off anyway, even when departing Calgary.  It is just easier than guessing as my most delicate pumps always seem to be packing serious steel shanks.

Comment #96: Ms Kate  on  11/23  at  08:10 PM

Here’s the thing- last summer, wearing a tank top, short skirt and FLIP FLOPS, I got taken aside, my shoes got the wand. These were cheap, $2 nothing to them flip flops. All I was carrying was a small wallet. But they required the time and energy to pull me aside and do a test on a pair of flip flops. How on Earth is that doing ANYTHING to make us more secure?

We made cockpits more secure after 9-11. I’d say that limits the possibility of pilots being overtaken and planes themselves being used as weapons as on 9/11. Beyond that, it is just security theater, nothing else. And I frankly don’t want the people who are so scared they think this makes sense running the show, because clearly we need rational, logical grown ups in charge.

Comment #97: Awkward  on  11/23  at  08:18 PM

Just heard on the Ed Show: there may be theater for the passengers, but there’s no equivalent screening for cargo.

So, a terrorist doesn’t even have to risk his own life, he/she can just simply send a package WHICH MAY NOT BE SCREENED.

These scanners truly are theater, but of course, theater that benefits those who sell the scanners: there’s a link, of course to some Republican politician whose name escapes me.

Don’t have time to google, but the CEO of scanner, inc also took the ride-along to India with President Obama.

I won’t do the scanner, there’s cancer in my family, so someone who may or may not get their jollies off frisking a 60 year old woman is in for a field day.

Comment #98: judybrowni  on  11/23  at  08:29 PM

I think we need professionals,

Where are you going to get them?

I mean, the estimates I’ve seen suggest 15,000 people would be necessary for better screening.  Is there a pool of 15,000 trained, ethical and trusted law enforcement people out there?

Or are you going to get, you know, semi-illiterate unemployed people pushed through a two week “TQA” training course and given a little certificate to prove that they are “professional”?

Which do you think is cheaper?

Comment #99: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/23  at  09:04 PM

@PIATOR

Is there a pool of 15,000 trained, ethical and trusted law enforcement people out there?

This may be my optimism talking, but I’m sure there are.  There’s just many places they are more needed, and hopefully currently better employed, than at airports.

Comment #100: Atheist, A Feminist  on  11/23  at  09:19 PM

(Just as a side note, my browsing today has unveiled the following:

i, An editorial from a Wall Street journal about how immoral are the people who stay in houses without paying the rent and deliberately exploit foreclosure slow-downs or “irregularities” with the note AND

ii, An editorial from a Wall Street journal about how employees should regard unpaid overtime as “relationship building” with their employers in tough economic times hint hint nudge nudge AND

iii, The news that this has been the best quarter for corporate profits eva!!!

Welcome to the new feudalism, chumps)

Comment #101: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/23  at  09:25 PM

he last time I flew out of Austin Bergstrom (which, mind you, is far from the behemoth airports in New York, LA, Chicago, Atlanta or Miami) there were easily 250 people standing in line to get processed.  There had been no searches up until that point.  No bomb sniffing dogs.  Nothing.  If I was a terrorist, then that would be my target.  And no amount of irradiation or humiliation would have stopped me.

I was thinking the same thing.

Every year, there are about 150 deaths due to deer-related traffic accidents.  Despite this, we don’t give the DOT or the DNR unlimited funding and unrestricted license to invade our lives in the name of 100% prevention of deer-related fatalities.  We reach a point where we tell ourselves that every reasonable precaution is being taken and we live with the risk.  Why can’t we do the same with terrorism?

Comment #102: DaveL  on  11/23  at  10:24 PM

Me:
But the political and emotional issues surrounding terrorism also put it in a very unique category,

Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes:
NO, they really don’t.  Politicians use terrorism lies to terrify people into giving up their rights, but the practical matter is no different.

Uh…yeah, they do. No one’s really going to care about all the car accidents that happen this week, but if a plane goes down, the political consequences are different. Perhaps they shouldn’t be, but the reality is they are. That’s all I’m saying.

And certainly there’s a greater emotional impact on people overall. I agree politicians manipulate the public’s fear of terrorism, but it also is true that people will have a stronger emotional response to a terrorist attack on a plane than to all the anonymous car accidents.

For those reasons, comparing how we deal with car accidents to how we deal with terrorist attacks on planes is not really a straight one-to-one. If you want to argue that those extra factors shouldn’t matter and it should be a one-to-one, fine. I do think there’s merit to that point, but that’s not the issue I was getting into.

For the record - before I get more ALL CAPS RESPONSES accusing me of fear mongering and whatever other silliness: I fully appreciate the civil liberty and privacy issues here, but I also appreciate the fact that there is a real threat we need to manage somehow. Yes, terrorists will always find a workaround, they could just kill everyone in the security line, etc - but does that mean we should do nothing? What should we do? How much is enough, and at what costs? There are no easy answers here, and if you really think there are you a simplistic thinker.

Comment #103: antiope  on  11/23  at  10:38 PM

What I can’t figure out is how terrorists have yet to discover crowded shopping malls.  We also have some pretty sketchy infrastructure when it comes to rail lines running under, over, or next to crowded and gridlocked freeways.

One tank of chlorine or ammonia can ruin your whole day.

Comment #104: Ms Kate  on  11/23  at  10:49 PM

Stop right there ms. kate you and REPUBLICAN Rick Santorum seem to think the same way:

Ms. Kate:“otherwise if you win, the terrorists do”


Rick Santorum:“government is giving in to terrorists with pat downs”


Oooow, ms. kate has right winger cooties!!!

http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2010/11/19/santorum-government-giving-into-terrorists-with-pat-downs/

Comment #105: BeanS  on  11/24  at  12:36 AM

.....but ms. kate thats nothing compared to…duh duh DUHHHH…LIMBAUGH who says the same thing!!


UGH….circle, circle, dot, dot, now I have my cooties shot!

Comment #106: BeanS  on  11/24  at  12:38 AM

If you think that life is about an “us versus them” mentality, you really are irrationally stupid.

First of all, those are excerpts.

Secondly, even if they are right wingers, they can be right sometimes - stopped clock, twice a day.

Third: Show some goddamn evidence of effectiveness of screening or fuck off with your apologies for stupidity and security theater already!

Oh, but thruthyism is wayyyy funner than FACTS!

Comment #107: Ms Kate  on  11/24  at  12:57 AM

anti-tank missile + over packed spent fuel rod pool located 7 stories high = totally massive destruction: http://www.pilgrimwatch.org/security.html

Yeah, its from an advocacy organization ... but the facts are from a well-vetted report. 

Perhaps this is where we should spend our security money? Secure waste storage? Hmmm?

Comment #108: Ms Kate  on  11/24  at  01:04 AM

@Ms Kate

Secondly, even if they are right wingers, they can be right sometimes - stopped clock, twice a day.

I mentioned this on the other thread, but in this case they are right like they were right about Lincoln being the best presidential candidate, MLK being a hero, civil rights legislation being necessary, and sexism being a really terrible thing that women like Sarah Palin face.  They aren’t a stopped clock, they are dragged along by the flow of history.  In this case, they happen to be being dragged along by their junk, but I’m with the others here who will take what they can get in that respect.

Comment #109: Atheist, A Feminist  on  11/24  at  01:33 AM

I AM afraid of being on subways

Are you also afraid of driving a car?  That is far more dangerous than riding the subway or a plane.  If you are afraid of plane travel more than car travel, then you are just outright irrational.  If you’re so afraid of plane travel that you support these invasive searches, and you’re even more afraid of car travel which is more dangerous, then I suggest that you huddle up in a corner of your house and never go outside.

Comment #110: bananacat  on  11/24  at  10:49 AM

#107,
Show me that they AREN’T working. Just because one slips by doesn’t mean it didn’t prevent 5 from doing the same thing.

Comment #111: BeanS  on  11/24  at  04:00 PM

#110,
I already responded to this argument further up. First more people drive cars so the stats are going to be higher. The stats on safety with driving cars may be scewed simply because is this counting only fatalities or simply any accident such as a fender bender. You also have to show an equivalent. The equivalent would be someone trying to hijack your car, with a bomb and after releasing that bomb driving straight into a building with it. In a car carsh, as well, you are most likely not going to die than a airplane crash which is pretty much and depressingly 100%-especially with a bomb on it thats aiming for a building. Can’t post any more (now jump all over like a coward when I’m not here to respond) because I have to cook Thanksgiving dinner. Hmmmm, saison ale!

Comment #112: BeanS  on  11/24  at  04:37 PM

#110,
Oh and I’m not afraid of driving in cars, it was subways, and I’m not AFRAID, simply AWARE that its a vulnerable spot for a terrorist, nonetheless your average sicko.

Comment #113: BeanS  on  11/24  at  04:41 PM

I suggest catgirl that you get some more real world experience because you seem to be a very trusting person.

Comment #114: BeanS  on  11/24  at  04:43 PM

@BeanS

especially with a bomb on it thats aiming for a building.

Umm…why would a terrorist build a bomb and hijack a plane?  If they successfully hijack a plane, the plane becomes a bomb.  Would they really bring along an extra?  If they want to blow-up a plane in mid-air, then they need a bomb, but they sure can’t aim it.

Maybe you are being hyperbolic like with the earlier claim about how high planes fly, but that seems like an odd choice for a paragraph intended to demonstrate that you have more real world experience than those who have been hearing your sorts of arguments since 2001.  (IMO, they haven’t gotten any more true than when they were trotted out back then.)

now jump all over like a coward when I’m not here to respond

Apologies for doing this, I don’t intend to be a coward.  On the other hand, you didn’t bother to respond to me when you were checking in on the thread, so it seems fair enough.

Comment #115: Atheist, A Feminist  on  11/24  at  07:41 PM

Umm…why would a terrorist build a bomb and hijack a plane?  If they successfully hijack a plane, the plane becomes a bomb.

A commercial pilot friend points this out all the time.  She said they go through the same security as everyone else (well, that may have now changed a bit), but she doesn’t need a bomb to bring the plane down; all she has to do is point it at something solid.  If her co-pilot is in the head or getting a cup of coffee, there’d be no one to stop her.  So why the pat-down/xray/bomb-sniffing dog?

Comment #116: NobleExperiments  on  11/24  at  08:12 PM

@NobleExperiments

If her co-pilot is in the head or getting a cup of coffee, there’d be no one to stop her.

I’m not even sure the co-pilot has to go anywhere.  If the pilot and co-pilot got in a fight over whether or not it is a good idea to turn the plane into a weapon, it is probably pretty likely that the passengers are fucked regardless of who wins.

Comment #117: Atheist, A Feminist  on  11/24  at  08:58 PM

Who are your five examples of terrorists caught by TSA security checkpoints?

Do you have even a single example of such a terrorist, in fact?
Comment #120: Chet on 11/25 at 08:18 PM

The authorities make such information highly classified, so that there is no way for us to determine what the most effective security measures are.

I would bet that well-trained TSA personnel who are naturally good at reading faces and reactions might be at the top of the list.  If they could hire and schedule and fire on that subjective basis, they’d probably do well, but then, if they could hire and schedule and fire on that subjective basis, I suspect that white males would end up being graded higher than they deserve.

Comment #118: oldfeminist  on  11/26  at  07:27 PM

I think this whole conservative outrage fits well with my belief that being right for the wrong reasons makes you wrong.

Comment #119: fox hats  on  11/28  at  10:43 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.