Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Something that I've been most dismayed about in this discussion is the subtext of ethnic profiling and some racialist statements that were made, contrasting blond young Anglo women with "pug ugly" Arab/Iranian men (there seemed to be a conflation of Arab and Persian as well). One should remember "Jihad Jane", a Pennsylvania-based blond Anglo female of recent memory who was caught trying to hatch international terror plots and assassinations.
The continual bashing on about "groping" "private parts" seems itself to convey a sort of prurient obsession over the potential sexual titilation that TSA employees might be deriving in the performance of their work. And then there seemed to be a sort of chivalrous chest-thumping over protecting the virtue of our young white women. Frankly, much of this discussion strikes me as having been quite over-determined, i.e. driven significantly by emotional/psychological issues rather than by dispassionate rational argument.
Apart from rogue terrorist wannabes like Richard Reid (the "shoe-bomber"), any serious terrorist is unlikely to look patently odd, suspicious or outside the usual norm of Western/American dress.
Still, the larger question is whether or not much of what passes for security procedures is really just security theatre, designed to make the public feel more secure but actually failing to make them safer from attack. That surely is one of the more crucial issues that needs critical examination.
Still, the larger question is whether or not much of what passes for security procedures is really just security theatre, designed to make the public feel more secure but actually failing to make them safer from attack. That surely is one of the more crucial issues that needs critical examination.
Perhaps, but in a way I think the inconsistency and arbitrariness in TSA from place to place and day to day may be the best security "feature" of all. TSA doesn't want there to be a road map for getting through security easily. They don't want the bad guys to learn that if you just bring a stroller with a whiny kid or a elderly lady with a walker then they'll leave you alone.
The Texas House passed a bill that would make it a criminal offense for public servants to inappropriately touch travelers during airport security pat-downs. Approved late Thursday night, the measure makes it illegal for anyone conducting searches to touch “the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person” including through clothing.
Something that I've been most dismayed about in this discussion is the subtext of ethnic profiling and some racialist statements that were made, contrasting blond young Anglo women with "pug ugly" Arab/Iranian men (there seemed to be a conflation of Arab and Persian as well). One should remember "Jihad Jane", a Pennsylvania-based blond Anglo female of recent memory who was caught trying to hatch international terror plots and assassinations.
Oh hell, c'mon DocJ...call me out directly if need be...as I was the one who used the phrase in question. You and I are friends (at least I hope we still are!) so let's not dance around it, guy! We have always been able to talk aloud and DM with our respective disagreements in a civil and respectful manner and no reason we can't here, either!
Anyway, yeah, I used that adjective "plug ugly" to make both a point and frustrated contrast between two groups which are treated by the TSA as if both are equally prone to blow up airplanes. There is nothing inherently racialist -- in the sense of any personal bigotry -- about it. However, some want to seize upon it as an obvious red-herrring.
It is a just a simple fact that single muslim Arab men (ugly or not) are probably nine million times more likely to commit acts of terrorism than a stacked blonde college girl (even if she might be an insuffurable spoiled brat as many of the type are) and little old lady, are. To pretend otherwise is political correctness at its worse. Too, has gotten us into the mess to begin with.
Profiling? So what is so wrong with that? This is another area where it borders on insanity for public safety measures to be restricted by PC policies which are absolutely at odds with reality. Some demographic segments of our society are much more likely to commit certain type crimes than others are. Serial killers are almost always middle-age white males. Crack dealers are usually young black males. Terrorists who go on suicide missions are almost certain to be Arab muslim men. Thus, depending upon the type crime -- or type to be prevented -- it only makes sense to focus upon a certain slice of the general population.
Have you ever ridden in a police car in a truly bad neighborhood? Dealt with true sociopaths on THEIR turf, not in a protected environment of clinical testing? Or, more to the point at hand, spent time with detectives who have to actually solve crimes..and all they have to go by is, yes, profiling. Bottom line is, it is very easy to get all righteous about "profiling" if ones job does not require actually solving the crime...or deterring another type from happening.
Quote:
The continual bashing on about "groping" "private parts" seems itself to convey a sort of prurient obsession over the potential sexual titilation that TSA employees might be deriving in the performance of their work.
And then there seemed to be a sort of chivalrous chest-thumping over protecting the virtue of our young white women. Frankly, much of this discussion strikes me as having been quite over-determined, i.e. driven significantly by emotional/psychological issues rather than by dispassionate rational argument.
Ok, DocJ...you being a clinical psychologist (which I hasten to add I admire very much, both personally and professionally) I can't really argue with you much on your own grounds and in the same esoteric language. I can only counter your ascribing some kind of sinister underlying "racist" and/or "macho" motive to the positions of those who take a different position than you, by appealing to something much simplier: To wit, common sense and life experience...as opposed to that in the ivory towers.
I am not trying to be flippant here (again, I very much consider you a respected friend), but "frankly" I find much of your analysis of the debate/discussion to be very much cloistered in academia. You might call it "pruient obscession"...but the reality is not quite so coldly clinical if it is yourself, or your daughter/wife/mother -- and you having to stand helplessly by and watch -- being singled out for an intrusive search in front of God and everybody.
Quote:
Still, the larger question is whether or not much of what passes for security procedures is really just security theatre, designed to make the public feel more secure but actually failing to make them safer from attack. That surely is one of the more crucial issues that needs critical examination.
First of all TexasReb, yes indeed I consider us friends. I am surprised at the amount of emotional passion the topic of this thread seemed to elicit from you. I think the issue is not one of political correctness, but rather of not demonising an entire multi-ethnic religious community for starters. I've got little time for religious fundamentalisms of any kind, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim. So I don't particularly care for people running around in various weird garb, and in the case of a minority of Muslim women full face veils. However, based on working with many faithful Muslims as patients during the time we lived in London, as well as with some mostly religiously non-observant Muslim colleagues, I've got considerable respect for the vast majority of that particular faith community. It is, of course, important to distinguish between Islam as a religion and Islamism as a political ideology. I think it's also important to appreciate the historic tensions in the modern world for the last century that have contributed to the cultural and geopolitical resentments held by populations of many Muslim countries toward the Western nation-states. Note: this is not at all to give some sort of perverse sympathy to the perpetrators of mass murder of innocent American citizens or indeed other nationals who through no fault of their own have been targeted by radicalised Islamist criminals; nor is it to shift blame for the development of the situation onto America. However, an understanding of the historical developments from at least the First World War onward can bring some objectivity to viewing the situation in which we find ourselves vis a vis our adversaries.
Now, as to how America deals with internal security issues, both prudence and fairness require that basic procedures apply without discrimination to all members of the public. Let us keep in mind, further, that the beginning of special pre-flight security procedures began years ago in response to hijackings of aircraft to Cuba, typically by disgruntled rogues acting more or less alone; there were also more politically coherent hijackings of Israeli aircraft that presaged the terrorism of more recent years. The question, of course, is what constitutes a tolerable and reasonable level of security screening in a "free" society (this question really applies not just to pre-flight screening but to all sorts of internal national security monitoring to which the whole population is subject).
I am sympathetic to legal challenges of various sorts to all manner of invasive national security measures. In my opinion, the proposed Texas legislation goes about this the wrong way, and ideologically I'm opposed to the particular "states' rights" subtext that the legislation appears to me to convey, taken in context of so much else that has recently emanated from the mouths of the Texas governor and legislators.
As long as the pre-flight security procedures and protocols are what they currently are, however, I've little sympathy for people who can't follow instructions in order to expedite getting through security screening. I don't know - maybe some of them don't fly much and maybe some of them have personality or cognitive problems that lead to making the security screening more difficult and arduous than it otherwise would be. I do know that if one chooses to be rude or smart-ass to security personnel, one is just asking for it. I also know BTW that some of the rudest immigration and customs agents I've ever encountered have been at DFW. As to TSA personnel in Texas I really can't say, not having flown in and out of there since 2005. On the other hand, I find the TSA folks at Philadelphia International normally quite jovial and nice, and the immigration and customs agents there at least aren't gratuitously rude. I also almost always find all British agents and security people very professional and pleasant. Thus if there's a problem with security, immigration and customs people in the USA it would seem to be a reflection on recruitment selection and training factors locally, rather than something that is necessarily intrinsic to security screening.
I know I've not addressed every point in your last post, but I hope I've dealt with some of the pertinent issues.
Despite a massive lobbying effort on behalf of public pressure groups that forced Governor Rick Perry to reverse his position and resurrect a bill that would ban TSA groping in Texas and place it on the special session of the Texas state legislature, lawmakers set to give the bill a hearing today bizarrely went AWOL, and the session was adjourned.
What a bunch of wimps. I'm quite sure Davy Crockett is spinning around in his grave. To think he gave his life so Texans could remain independent and proud.
I think I'm going to cry. But first I'll have a beer & brat.
Oh, TexasReb I am cool now b/c I was being "bought for" at happy hour with the Lone Stars. Hmm..... I don't fly much but when I do I get a kick out of those TSA folks. You really don't need to rub my crotch three times and check my shoes for 20 minutes. I mean I get it, but cmon man I need to get to my gate and have a few before the flight.
It turns out if as close to the bill as it was originally written and passed in the House does not also pass in the Senate, that really restricts what the TSA can do regarding touching genitals etc, there will be a citizen filibuster that will delay all SORTS of other non related bills and force the legislators to extend their session beyond when it was planned and delay the start of their summer break.
The protest will not be just today but as many days as necessary until they do what is right because they won't be able to go on vacation until they do the right thing! Just thought you might be interested to know the latest.
U-stream and Justin TV will be covering this afternoon's coverage. The link will be available on Infowars.com later today for those of us who can't be there. People from all over Texas are going though. Sounds like history in the making. I wish I could be there.
Last edited by emilybh; 06-27-2011 at 01:08 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
profile 
the people that are causing all the problems, eyh Eric?
Status of Anti-gropiing bill in Texas....
