Protect your junk

[Tara]

my hubby and I chuckled at this.  He's opting out next weekend too when we fly so will have to get the pat down

[LaurieS]

This issue has been all over tv today.. I watched them pat down several people and I for one would be embarrassed to go through that type of invasion.  They were showing a young woman probably in her mid twenties ... her stretched top was super form fitting and she was very thin, yet they felt the need to circle her breast with their hands.. if she had a M&M in her bra you would have seen it...I found it to be very invasive.  They were also talking about physically searching children as well.. I know we should  say thank you to our local terrorist, but now it looks like we are terrorizing our own citizens.

Something that was not mentioned today and I listened for quite a while is, what are the Muslims doing.  I know that this goes against all their beliefs.. Are any religions exempt from this type of search?

[elsieshaye]

I saw a few places where there are no religious exemptions.

http://www.latimes.com/sns-ap-us-airplane-security,0,1461496.story

[Tara]

things are moving right along:

https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox/12c6a8e15eadf005

[Pooh]

I am so very torn on this issue.  On one hand, I think in today's world, anything that can be done to protect me when I fly, I am all for.  Knowing that everyone passed threw the full body scan gives me a sense of security.  But, I also agree that any x-ray, MRI, etc. type of equipment could be harmful if used frequently.  So for people that fly weekly, I wouldn't want to do it either.

I have seen the pat-downs and it is the same type law enforcement do to a criminal.  To me, they are very invasive as a law-abiding citizen.  I don't want anyone touching my breasts unless it's my hubby, doctor or Brad Pitt. 

Plus...part of me says that no matter how much they do to the passengers to keep them safe....they just had the incident with the toner cartridge bomb thingy.  So to me, the luggage and cargo is presenting a major problem now.

I'm driving.

[kathleen]

Pooh,

Brad Pitt.  Hilarious. 

The problem is that these scanners do not catch everything that goes through.  That has been proven.  Trained dogs, according to Kate Hanni, who runs FlyersRights.org, are more effective.  The question is raised, are dogs practical?  I don't see why not, but they would have to be kept under tight control.

There is probably no way in this day and age that we can keep ourselves totally safe.  Flying is optional; my husband and I have opted out; one of my friends feels that the scanner problem will not resolve until people boycott the airlines, which most people are not willing to do.  But it is an option and as such, other people are in control of what they can and cannot do to their travelers.

Flying is less safe in all ways today than it ever has been.  The pilots and crew are overworked; there is way too much pressure to keep on time vs. safety concerns of all kinds; too many flights, too little services.  FlyersRights started because people were kept on planes for hours with no food or water or clean restrooms.  How ironic that a survivor of 9-11 died in the Buffalo crash, probably as a result of an overworked crew and flying in bad icing conditions.

Remember the days when you could fly comfortably and enjoy a little hot meal in flight, all compliments of your paid ticket?  To think we used to complain about bad airline food!

Kathleen

[seasage]

The problem is that these scanners do not catch everything that goes through.  That has been proven.  Trained dogs, according to Kate Hanni, who runs FlyersRights.org, are more effective.
Kathleen

I have been wondering about the effectiveness of these scanners.  Supposedly they were installed in response to the underpants bomber.  Supposedly these scanners detect PETN explosives that do not show up on the (higher-energy) x-ray scanners they use for our carry-on luggage.  So what will the next underpants bomber do?  Easy.  Stuff the PETN explosive into his carry-on.  Duh...

I believe that these scanners are being used because (1) lots of people are making a lot of money by selling them, especially our ex-head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and (2) the TSA knows that a strip-search is still more effective than the usual walk-through metal detectors.  But the fact is, a determined terrorist will not be caught by these newer scanners.

[Pooh]

I agree.  I miss the old days on more than just this.

I will say that trained dogs present their own problems.  I lived with a drug dog for seven years, and although they are great, they are only as good as their training and upkeep.  To train a dog to be expert in both bomb and drugs is very expensive.  And they can not differ between prescribed pills and unprescribed pills, so you are still subject to pat-down if they hit on you.  Plus they are not 100% accurate and people would still be subject to search.

I don't have the answer except I would rather drive right now.

[LaurieS]

I did not realize that when John Tyner (he was the one that first stated not to touch his junk) refused the millimeter wave and backscatter x-ray machines and then the pat down that he was then threatened with a civil suit and a 10,000.00 fine and was harassed about trying to leave the airport.  So they are basically saying that once you walk into the airport you, your husband, parents, and especially your children belong to TSA.  Criminal http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

[Tara]

Amazing.  In very surprised that this is happening in this country. 
Especially since I've heard (as may have been said here)  that the company and government
will not let the scientists inspect and assess safety of machines.

[LaurieS]

I have been diagnosed with skin cancer.. I will have to ask for the crotch squeeze.  Maybe I can do my best Meg Ryan as she amused me in "When Harry Met Sally".

[Tara]

I have been diagnosed with skin cancer.. I will have to ask for the crotch squeeze.  Maybe I can do my best Meg Ryan as she amused me in "When Harry Met Sally".

aw Laurie  I LOL when read this

[Tara]

How about this solution?

http://www.10news.com/news/25885183/detail.html

But, then there's this...

http://www.10news.com/news/25881679/detail.html

Very entertaining Rose

[LaurieS]

What I don't understand is.. if walking through the metal detectors isn't good enough then why do we have them.  Last time I flew I had on sandals, it felt a little nasty walking barefooted where others have walked barefooted all I could see was little athlete foot germs dashing towards me.  The guy ahead of me all but stripped, I finally asked him as I stood there waiting forever if he brought soap and shampoo because he was down to almost nothing.  And not to be gross but what if a woman had on a sanitary pad that would be extremely embarrassing during a invasive pat down.  If someone really wanted to hide something they still could.. now I'm picturing all passengers bending over and touching their toes.  The terrorist will still find a way, meanwhile we've been reduced to being treated like common criminals.

[kathleen]

Tara & all,

I think a closer look at this issue results in seeing that our loss of freedom and dignity may be related to companies that make a profit from the machines and the former "Homeland Security" official who is making a ton off them.  Laurie's point about being a captive in an airport is right on as well.  There's often a tradeoff of freedom for security, and with what's happening now I'll take freedom any day. 

By now there are absolutely horrific stories of these scanners coming out, such as the airline stewardess who had to remove her prosthesis (breast cancer) for the machine, and a completely humiliated man I saw on CNN who had a colostomy bag which broke under the pressure of the search. Obviously in great distress, he said this is the fear of every colostomy survivor.  What is wrong with this society for accepting this in any way?  Brutish force against those with these health situations?  It's increasingly apparent that the more liberties we give up, the more will be taken away, if these examples continue.

I was reminded of my sister-in-law's visit three years ago.  She had early Alzheimer's and desperately wanted to see us before it was impossible for her to travel.  It was a long, cross-country trip and as she also has trouble walking, we marveled at her pluck and determination in coming.  Accompanying her to the airport for her return trip, we learned exactly how much pluck was required.  I approached security as she needed medication while on board and asked for permission for her to carry a water bottle (in case the plane sat there for hours while staff refused her water).  The first guard was helpful and said all I had to do was explain to the police and they would give her a pass on the water; no such luck; apparently they didn't even have their rules straight among themselves, these guards.  They searched all her bags carefully and handed me the water and a tiny bottle of maple syrup, plastic seal intact, back to me---she had purchased it in Canada. Pleading with them only resulted in the guard becoming angry.  The next thing we knew they took her in her wheelchair off through large swinging doors, with instructions for us to say goodbye as she had to be searched personally and privately.  We asked to please let us accompany her to the plane when they were finished with her; denied.  So this is another aspect: private body searches out of range of relatives or anyone else by the searchers, of an elderly woman with early Alz.  They never explained why they had to take her into a private room.  It was absolutely terrible; it felt very invasive; it was extremely anxiety-producing and stressful and ultimately frightening.  They were very harsh and abrasive in their manner, tone of voice, and treatment; almost threatening;  there were three guards searching her.  We never saw her again and may never see her again and my last image of my very beloved sister-in-law is of uniformed airport police rushing her wheelchair through those steel doors.  And all the time she was in the air I worried whether she got her medication.  I hope the airlines are liable if water is denied (water!!! simple water!!!) and an elderly person or anyone else becomes ill.

I cannot possibly think of a kinder, more wonderful, more sweet-natured & caring, more intelligent person than my sister-in-law.  A former Catholic nun, a school teacher, a lover of children and her dogs.  This is the person they treated like a criminal.  They say they don't want "profiling" because it is "racist."  Well, it surely felt as if she was "profiled" and punished for being an innocent citizen with not so much as a speeding ticket on her record.  She was definitely treated with more hands-on scrutiny than if she had been an ordinary passenger.

By the way, my comment that everyone has the choice to fly or not may have sounded elitist.  I realize many people must travel for business, so I apologize if my remarks were untoward.  Many others of us have a choice, however. 

Why is it that in any other situation these "pat-downs" (which seem far more than that to me) would be regarded as illegal sexual assault?  Is it because when we fly, we are thought to be giving permission to be man-handled?  Does anyone know exactly how many plane bombs have been avoided now with the "new security?" 

Believe me when I say I have a very personal connection to 9-11---my son lives in lower Manhattan and witnessed the second plane going in. Nobody is more sensitive than my family to what happened.  But when this event is used to destroy basic liberty and personal dignity, as far as I'm concerned the terrorists have a victory.

Nothing fun about this.  I wish all of you who have to fly this holiday the least possible stress and all safety on your trip, and please let us know how it goes.

In growing outrage but happy on the ground,

Kathleen