National Opt-Out Day -- anyone participating?

[LND1218]

I am surprised by the people who aren't bothered by this - a lot of people are saying they would rather have this and be safe. UGH! I don't know who irritates me more the government who takes away rights or the people who willing give up their rights!

 

Did you hear about the leaked images of people that went public?

[ktgrok]

I agree with a PP that it got ridiculous when they started making you take off your shoes. Think about it, you had to take off your shoes but you didn't have to empty your pockets???? That is just dumb. And these pat downs do nothing. Any terrorist that googles "prison wallet" will figure out how to get things past the pat down. If they are willing to blow themselves up they are willing to put things up their rear. So unless we are going to do body cavity searches on everyone there is no way to prevent bringing contraband on.

[jld]

Here is a link to another Michigan horror story...I feel so bad for this man.

 

I have to say, having spent a great deal of time in the DTW airport, I can honestly say that the TSA there are notoriously known for their attitudes and by that, I don't mean cheery dispositions.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news/?GT1=43001

 

I feel so bad for this guy.

 

Faith

 

That is just terrible. Thanks for posting this.

[Kirch]

I'm hatching a little plan myself.

 

Our family had planned to fly to DC this summer -- big family trip to top off our study of American history.

 

We just might drive -- drive across the whole darn U S of A with a big "OPTING OUT "sign on top of our minivan. We might just contact the local media in some of the little towns we'll be passing through.

 

I need to think it through and get my husband on board. He's not quite as willing to stick his neck out as I am.

 

It would be quite the example for my kids of our American freedoms, wouldn't it? We'd protest all the way across the country. :)

 

I think that's an awesome idea! Although, if things keep heating up over this the way they seem to be now, it might be resolved by summer. We can hope!

[....]

I spent some time yesterday perusing youtube. There are tons of footage taken from people's cell phones, recording what the TSA is doing. I watched someone's filming of a pat-down of a 4-5 yro boy. This is nothing but assault. There is nothing that anyone can say to convince me otherwise. A 4 yro is not hiding C4 in his underwear.

 

I also could see someone who has been abused having a complete melt-down during one of these patdowns/screenings.

 

These airports need to come to their senses and fire the TSA. Those people will never find another job with TSA on their resume.

[pdalley]

Sure, 80% of the people in the poll. I'm NEVER in the poll. Where you asked? Anyone here asked? You can get any result you desire if you look in the right place.

 

They polled Congress - who isn't subject to these horrific invasive procedures other than some dog and pony show they put on for the cameras. Of course they approve - they aren't being groped.

 

I was in tears reading the story of a mother whose son's pacifier holder's metal clip set off the scanner. She was groped and a TSA agent walked off with her screaming baby. She was so upset she had to take Xanax.

 

I told DH I would NEVER fly. I never have and I will not - with three autistic kids - ever put them through stuff like this. We will drive or not go.

[phathui5]

I'm in the poll!

 

I got sent a long political poll this morning from PollingPoint (a survey company that pays you to take polls) and I got to answer a bunch of questions about the body scanners.

[Tea Time]

I'm hatching a little plan myself.

 

Our family had planned to fly to DC this summer -- big family trip to top off our study of American history.

 

We just might drive -- drive across the whole darn U S of A with a big "OPTING OUT "sign on top of our minivan. We might just contact the local media in some of the little towns we'll be passing through.

 

I need to think it through and get my husband on board. He's not quite as willing to stick his neck out as I am.

 

It would be quite the example for my kids of our American freedoms, wouldn't it? We'd protest all the way across the country. :)

 

I think that is a great idea as a protest, but it reminded me of an example of a very relevant economics principle that I read a few months ago. Sorry, I can't recall the source as I was not paying too much attention to it at the time, but you'll get the idea.

 

At some point an infant was killed when an airplane had a very bad landing causing the infant flew out of the mother's arms. The airline, or whoever was in a position to do so, went to work to solve the terrible problem of potential infant deaths on airlines. Naturally the work they did was very popular. What a horrific thing to happen! And, after all, it was easy enough to solve. The airlines began to require infants to have their own seats on planes. But economists did what they do, and they ran the stats (not such a popular thing to do - in fact a boring and unpopular thing to do). They figured out that the increased number of people choosing to drive instead of fly, because of the increased cost of purchasing another seat, would cause more infant deaths than the airplane incidents. I do not recall the stats (remember, stats are not popular, they are boring ;) ), but it was something like the total number of plane related deaths of this type would happen in cars in just a few months - every few months, or something similar to that.

 

How many people have been killed in the US by bombs planted in shoes? How many by bombs planted in underwear? How many by ceramic devices in body cavities (I don't think ceramics can be detected by the scan so once a body cavity device gets through, then that will REQUIRE -?- the additional security of a physical body search)? Now, how many people are killed in car accidents and, let's say, especially by people using cell phones and texting? Each year? Don't all of you see people texting while driving? Why then, if the death of Americans is the only concern, do we allow people to even have cell phones? And if this policy causes more Americans to hit the roads, then it will cause more deaths. Period.

 

Economics sheds light on everything. So, it makes me wonder if this threat is becoming that large. Obama has again said that these measures are "necessary." Is the threat that much higher than it has been in the past decade when these measures were not in place? I am asking seriously, because if they are, then there is a lot more to fear than airline terrorism, and not securing our border and not allowing Arizona to check citizenship just seems like a very mixed message. You have to be subject to physical assault if you want to visit your family or do business, but people pulled over by police can't be "humiliated" by being asked for identification. What is the difference, exactly? Just being PC? For real?

 

What is the real deal here? I honestly want to know, because it is clear that these measures are causing a lot of fear and even economic disruption. Again, those are the real goals of terrorism, not just causing deaths. The deaths cause the fear and economic disruption, perhaps enough to topple a power structure eventually, like a slow drip. That is the end game, not a few deaths on a plane. How do we protect ourselves from that if we willingly participate in the process like sheep?

[Mejane]

I find that very hard to believe.

 

From this article:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/19/national/main7070947.shtml

 

"A recent CBS News poll found that 4 out of 5 Americans approve of the use of full-body digital X-ray machines. But that fifth American is plenty mad."

[Mejane]

Sure, 80% of the people in the poll. I'm NEVER in the poll. Where you asked? Anyone here asked? You can get any result you desire if you look in the right place.

 

I agree polls can be skewed. The article linked says 4 out of 5 approve, but that one who doesn't is really mad. ;)

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/19/national/main7070947.shtml

[Elaine]

From this article:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/19/national/main7070947.shtml

 

"A recent CBS News poll found that 4 out of 5 Americans approve of the use of full-body digital X-ray machines. But that fifth American is plenty mad."

 

I also saw another poll on there where 86% said Enough with the scans and pat-downs! They're an invasion of civil liberties.

 

So just because CBS puts it out there does not make it true. *cough*danrather*cough*

[Mejane]

Wait....

 

You have to take off ALL jewelry? Even wedding bands?

 

 

Seriously?

 

I literally cannot do that. I've worn my wedding ring since I was 16 years old. And um, my finger is not 16 anymore.

 

I literally cannot take my wedding ring off and haven't in ... Decades.

 

What would they do to me for that? I can't imagine I'm the only one. Lots of old folks surely have the same issue?

 

 

And don't say they will cut it off! Like heck they will over my cold dead body.

 

If you set off the metal detector, you are subject to the enhanced patdown. It's a no-win.

[Mejane]

I also saw another poll on there where 86% said Enough with the scans and pat-downs! They're an invasion of civil liberties.

 

So just because CBS puts it out there does not make it true. *cough*danrather*cough*

 

I'd like to see that poll. Can you link please?

 

Look, I'd love it if 100% of Americans said NO to this. I just think they've gradually worn down most of us, so the 80%, if accurate, is not surprising to me.

[LibraryLover]

I understand wanting to stop these searches. I disagree with them as well.

 

I do want to point out the statistical fact that flying is still less dangerous than driving. Nearly 1,000 (estimates vary) more people were killed driving in the 3 mos after 9/11 than had been in the past for the same time period.

 

I think Boycotting is a legitimate form of personal protest, but do weigh the greater risk of the alternative form of travel (driving).

[Elaine]

I'd like to see that poll. Can you link please?

 

Look, I'd love it if 100% of Americans said NO to this. I just think they've gradually worn down most of us, so the 80%, if accurate, is not surprising to me.

 

Sure.:001_smile:

 

If this does not work, follow the link that you posted to me and then scroll down to the "Do New TSA Airport Screens Go Too Far?" headline on the left hand side.

[Tea Time]

From this article:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/19/national/main7070947.shtml

 

"A recent CBS News poll found that 4 out of 5 Americans approve of the use of full-body digital X-ray machines. But that fifth American is plenty mad."

 

That poll must match up with a few other stats, like this:

 

4 out of 5 Americans do not comprehend basic economic principles. 4 out of 5 Americans are okay with the deaths of Americans as long as those deaths are in cars and not terrorist acts. 4 out of 5 Americans do not understand the actual goals of terrorists.

 

Really, I could go on and on.

 

I don't believe it anyway. The questions must be loaded. "Do you walk to school or pack your lunch?"

 

It is possible though. This population has largely traded in guts for comforts.

 

But you know, even cattle can regain their courage. I love this video! Stuff like this always makes me think of it. It is long, but it is well worth watching if you haven't seen it already. It is not going to work out like you think. It is a little graphic though, if you don't like animal violence. But if you like a surprise ending, stick it out.

 

 

[Mejane]

I'm in the poll!

 

I got sent a long political poll this morning from PollingPoint (a survey company that pays you to take polls) and I got to answer a bunch of questions about the body scanners.

 

Can you tell us anything about the poll? Did it seem the questions were loaded or skewed in some way?

 

I've never been polled for anything. I wish someone would ask me what I think just once; I'd give them an earful. :glare:

[Mejane]

That poll must match up with a few other stats, like this:

 

4 out of 5 Americans do not comprehend basic economic principles. 4 out of 5 Americans are okay with the deaths of Americans as long as those deaths are in cars and not terrorist acts. 4 out of 5 Americans do not understand the actual goals of terrorists.

 

 

 

Now those stats I believe. Unfortunately. :tongue_smilie:

[Caroline]

Sure.:001_smile:

 

If this does not work, follow the link that you posted to me and then scroll down to the "Do New TSA Airport Screens Go Too Far?" headline on the left hand side.

 

The poll talked about here was an on-line poll. On-line polls are not statistically valid because the sampling is not random.

[Tea Time]

I do want to point out the statistical fact that flying is still less dangerous than driving. Nearly 1,000 (estimates vary) more people were killed driving in the 3 mos after 9/11 than had been in the past for the same time period.

 

I think Boycotting is a legitimate form of personal protest, but do weigh the greater risk of the alternative form of travel (driving).

 

Do you have me on ignore? I just pointed that out. Clearly the real issue is not strictly "deaths." What is really going on then? Is there some kind of massive increase in terrorist activity in recent months? Do they know something they are not telling us?

 

This from the CBS site that Elaine just linked:

 

"A surprising effect of the scans may eventually be a decline in air travel, according to an online Reuters poll. Reuters' readers were asked whether or not they would change their travel plans to avoid the invasive scans and pat-downs, and a whopping 96 percent (65,708 of 68,513) have thus far said yes."

 

That WILL increase the deaths of Americans, even if it is only partly increased driving. It will also damage us economically if our airline industry continues to be hammered, and it will increase the costs of maintaining roads (costs taxpayers will shoulder). In addition, the additional traffic will make driving more unpleasant just like airline travel has become unpleasant. All goals of the terrorist: met.

[Tea Time]

The poll talked about here was an on-line poll. On-line polls are not statistically valid because the sampling is not random.

 

That is true, so if you do a completely randomized sampling you will get a more accurate view of what everyone thinks.

 

But it is interesting to note you will also get people who haven't really thought about it. Those people who take the time to read articles, to understand what is going on, and to bother to vote on the online polls happen to be the ones that are more likely to have an opinion that is informed. (The 1 in 5 who understand economics)

 

That is why our founders created a Republic and not a democracy. Just something to think about.

 

BTW, maybe these measures are absolutely necessary. I am willing to believe that, but our administration has done a very poor job in explaining to us, beyond what appears "emotional" to me, how this will statistically save lives while still preserving and protecting our liberties, which is also the point of fighting terrorism.

[Gwenhwyfar]

Do you have me on ignore?

 

this is one of those questions that can't ever be answered with "yes". :laugh:

[eternalknot]

Wait....

 

You have to take off ALL jewelry? Even wedding bands?

 

 

Seriously?

 

I literally cannot do that. I've worn my wedding ring since I was 16 years old. And um, my finger is not 16 anymore.

 

I literally cannot take my wedding ring off and haven't in ... Decades.

 

What would they do to me for that? I can't imagine I'm the only one. Lots of old folks surely have the same issue?

 

 

And don't say they will cut it off! Like heck they will over my cold dead body.

 

Sometimes you can use body heat to negate small pieces of metal when going through the metal detector. If I were in your situation, I'd clasp my hands when I walked through, using my right cupped over my left and fully covering my ring. I do this with my belt buckle, and it works 99% of the time.

[asta]

This is such a sticky situation....when a terrorist attack or act of violence happens, the government is accused of being too lax...now we think they have gone overboard.

 

I hate the new regulations; I do -- but I'm willing to tolerate them versus be blown up in mid-flight.

 

I'm far more frustrated by the illegal tapping and covert surveillance.

 

Surveillance is more effective than pat downs. This has been discussed on the board before. The Israelis have perfected this. No successful hijackings since 1968.

 

Additionally, our current security measures are reactive, not proactive. AQ does one thing, we react with measures, they move on the the next thing, etc. Reactive security doesn't guard against that type of threat.

 

hey i wonder if you'd have to get a pat down if you showed up in a bikini? i mean...what's left to pat down? :p

 

I thought about this. And then I thought, well, they'll still grope, so the Mennonites have it right. But then I started wondering about the whole "haul you in for indecency" thing. Maybe pasties and a g-string are the way to go...

 

 

What is the real deal here? I honestly want to know, because it is clear that these measures are causing a lot of fear and even economic disruption. Again, those are the real goals of terrorism, not just causing deaths. The deaths cause the fear and economic disruption, perhaps enough to topple a power structure eventually, like a slow drip. That is the end game, not a few deaths on a plane. How do we protect ourselves from that if we willingly participate in the process like sheep?

 

And this is the crux of it all. Everyone is yapping about boobs and genitals (rightly so), but AQ is laughing in caves. You don't establish a worldwide caliphate by galloping in on horseback brandishing a scimitar any longer: nowadays, you plant a seed of distrust and let civilizations eat themselves from within. Then all you have to do is walk in and set up shop in the ruins. It is a rather brilliant strategy, actually. And kind of sickeningly funny as well: backwards sheepherders stuck in the 14th c. are literally herding 21c. sheep.

 

 

a

[LibraryLover]

this is one of those questions that can't ever be answered with "yes". :laugh:

 

 

I can say the answer is 'no' in this case, although I do like to keep the crabs out of my craw, so I may consider it. My only excuse is that I have not read all 50 pages of this thread. ;)

[Tea Time]

this is one of those questions that can't ever be answered with "yes". :laugh:

 

But it might help lurkers know something that is in play on these boards. I don't really understand that feature myself. Purposefully keeping yourself from following the logic of a thread? It can make your posts look like you can't read or something. But if it helps your blood pressure, then I guess it is worth it!

 

But at least you don't, so thanks! ;)

 

(@Asta - Thank you! Yes! That is what is happening. And it is sickening!)

 

(@Library Lover - Whew. :tongue_smilie: But I am not a crab. Well, technically that is my birth sign, so maybe? :lol: Then you'd miss the great animal video I posted!)

 

Now, I have to go get some work done!

 

Signed:

Master Procrastinator (good board name right there!)

:lol:

[Caroline]

Or it is a bunch of people reacting to someone's bog post which told them to go vote and vote often in the on-line poll. Just because you are reading an article doesn't mean you are thinking critically about the article.

 

 

That is true, so if you do a completely randomized sampling you will get a more accurate view of what everyone thinks.

 

But it is interesting to note you will also get people who haven't really thought about it. Those people who take the time to read articles, to understand what is going on, and to bother to vote on the online polls happen to be the ones that are more likely to have an opinion that is informed. (The 1 in 5 who understand economics)

 

That is why our founders created a Republic and not a democracy. Just something to think about.

 

BTW, maybe these measures are absolutely necessary. I am willing to believe that, but our administration has done a very poor job in explaining to us, beyond what appears "emotional" to me, how this will statistically save lives while still preserving and protecting our liberties, which is also the point of fighting terrorism.

[phathui5]

Can you tell us anything about the poll? Did it seem the questions were loaded or skewed in some way?

 

I've never been polled for anything. I wish someone would ask me what I think just once; I'd give them an earful. :glare:

 

These were pretty balanced. I wish I had copied it. The questions were something like "The TSA is now using full-body scanners that show a naked image of the person being scanned. Do you support or oppose the use of full-body scanners for enhanced airport security?"

[5kidsforME]

I lost all respect for "polls" when I was asked,

 

Them- "What religion are you?"

Me: Christian.

Them: "Do you consider yourself: A-Protestant, B-Born again, or C- Evangelical?"

Me: <silent>

Them: Ma'am please answer the question.

Me: I am waiting for D, all of the above....?

Them: You can only choose A, B, or C

Me: Um, no I can't. I am A, B, and C.

Them: Ma'am please just pick one.

Me: <silence>....I'm hanging up now. Click.

[mommaduck]

I lost all respect for "polls" when I was asked,

 

Them- "What religion are you?"

Me: Christian.

Them: "Do you consider yourself: A-Protestant, B-Born again, or C- Evangelical?"

Me: <silent>

Them: Ma'am please answer the question.

Me: I am waiting for D, all of the above....?

Them: You can only choose A, B, or C

Me: Um, no I can't. I am A, B, and C.

Them: Ma'am please just pick one.

Me: <silence>....I'm hanging up now. Click.

LOL! Boy, the person putting together that poll certainly did not know what they were talking about!

[5kidsforME]

LOL! Boy, the person putting together that poll certainly did not know what they were talking about!

 

Exactly! :lol:

[Elaine]

Surveillance is more effective than pat downs. This has been discussed on the board before. The Israelis have perfected this. No successful hijackings since 1968.

 

Additionally, our current security measures are reactive, not proactive. AQ does one thing, we react with measures, they move on the the next thing, etc. Reactive security doesn't guard against that type of threat.

 

 

 

I thought about this. And then I thought, well, they'll still grope, so the Mennonites have it right. But then I started wondering about the whole "haul you in for indecency" thing. Maybe pasties and a g-string are the way to go...

 

 

 

 

And this is the crux of it all. Everyone is yapping about boobs and genitals (rightly so), but AQ is laughing in caves. You don't establish a worldwide caliphate by galloping in on horseback brandishing a scimitar any longer: nowadays, you plant a seed of distrust and let civilizations eat themselves from within. Then all you have to do is walk in and set up shop in the ruins. It is a rather brilliant strategy, actually. And kind of sickeningly funny as well: backwards sheepherders stuck in the 14th c. are literally herding 21c. sheep.

 

 

a

 

I am not ashamed to say, asta, that I love you.:D

[Elaine]

The poll talked about here was an on-line poll. On-line polls are not statistically valid because the sampling is not random.

 

True. But I seriously doubt the accuracy of the other polls, too. I am a jaded cynic when it comes to anything related to the TSA/homeland security.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

 

And this is the crux of it all. Everyone is yapping about boobs and genitals (rightly so), but AQ is laughing in caves. You don't establish a worldwide caliphate by galloping in on horseback brandishing a scimitar any longer: nowadays, you plant a seed of distrust and let civilizations eat themselves from within. Then all you have to do is walk in and set up shop in the ruins. It is a rather brilliant strategy, actually. And kind of sickeningly funny as well: backwards sheepherders stuck in the 14th c. are literally herding 21c. sheep.

 

 

a

 

:iagree:

 

They can turn our cultural guilt and need to be PC, all-inclusive, and compassionate against us. This is why sometimes we need to be none of the above. {While there are times when being some of the above is good it may not always be good with regard to an enemy that feels none of the above towards us.}

[Chelle in MO]

 

I wish

was younger so he could try for the presidency again. I'd vote for him (again).

 

What about his son, Rand? I imagine he'll try for the presidency at some point.

[Tea Time]

Or it is a bunch of people reacting to someone's bog post which told them to go vote and vote often in the on-line poll. Just because you are reading an article doesn't mean you are thinking critically about the article.

 

Or...perhaps it is videos like this that are prompting the responses:

 

I hope that they do not start stopping citizens from recording things. That seems fair enough to me.

 

"Reacting to someone's blog" may or may not include critical thinking. This method of communication is the newest and fastest available. Utilizing it is smart. It is effective in commanding actions, which may or may not be good, but people who are not being polled clearly are still interested in being heard. And agreeing with this policy because a poll reports that 80% of the populations is okay with it is no show of critical thinking either.

 

Anyway, plenty of people on this thread have offered a lot of thoughtful observations about these procedures. Thank you Asta! Can anyone give those of us who have concerns some facts that go a bit beyond, "You just have to put up with it because it makes you safe!"? As I said, I am perfectly willing as long as I am able to understand how the increased traffic issues and invasion of privacy is really going to provide a net benefit.

 

You know, shifting fatalities from airlines to roads still ends in deaths, but it is easier to attribute terrorist incidents to failed government protection (which is not necessarily valid) than it is to attribute traffic fatalities the the government.

[Elaine]

Or...perhaps it is videos like this that are prompting the responses:

 

I hope that they do not start stopping citizens from recording things. That seems fair enough to me.

 

"Reacting to someone's blog" may or may not include critical thinking. This method of communication is the newest and fastest available. Utilizing it is smart. It is effective in commanding actions, which may or may not be good, but people who are not being polled clearly are still interested in being heard. And agreeing with this policy because a poll reports that 80% of the populations is okay with it is no show of critical thinking either.

 

Anyway, plenty of people on this thread have offered a lot of thoughtful observations about these procedures. Thank you Asta! Can anyone give those of us who have concerns some facts that go a bit beyond, "You just have to put up with it because it makes you safe!"? As I said, I am perfectly willing as long as I am able to understand how the increased traffic issues and invasion of privacy is really going to provide a net benefit.

 

You know, shifting fatalities from airlines to roads still ends in deaths, but it is easier to attribute terrorist incidents to failed government protection (which is not necessarily valid) than it is to attribute traffic fatalities the the government.

 

:iagree:

 

The thing is, though, we are not really that much safer. Every screening process that is in place now is a direct result of an event that already occurred. At what point do we say this is not working at all, and try something new, like profiling or common sense.

[Mejane]

 

nowadays, you plant a seed of distrust and let civilizations eat themselves from within. Then all you have to do is walk in and set up shop in the ruins.

 

This, yes. The monsters are due on Maple Street.