Jump to content

Menu

TSA New Procedure Poll


What will you do?  

  1. 1. What will you do?

    • Against new TSA procedures - won't be flying
      200
    • Against new TSA procedures - will reduce how much we fly
      104
    • I'm okay with the new TSA procedures
      49
    • Don't select this option. It is just for people to select 'Other'
      45


Recommended Posts

We've been "polled" before. It's a crock! If you don't give the answer the pollster wants to hear, they don't always log your answer. So, unless the poll is conducted by a scientific agency who really cares about accuracy or an organization totally independent of the political alliances involved, they don't normally mean a whole hill of beans.

 

The TSA probably asked for the poll and you can be sure that the government agency that funded it, made sure it came out in their favor.

 

We had plans to go to Papua New Guinea and help some missionary friends with a project...we have cancelled this. We had started saving money to take ds13 to Germany and ds 12 to Denmark; those plans are now on the back burner as well.

 

No flying for us. My sister is coming for Thanksgiving and this is her last flight. She is going out of Louisville into Flint and neither of those airports have the scanners and they are not routinely doing patdown...only if you set of the metal detector. We've reminded her, no jewelry, no hair clips, no zippers (wear a skirt that buttons), etc. She's hoping to avoid the government grope.

 

Faith

 

Uhoh, I don't think a skirt is a good idea. Just do a search for "TSA skirt" and you will change your mind fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd also be all for some of our National Guardsmen getting this degree of training. After all, they are here for help with national crisis and domestic security...we shouldn't be deploying them overseas, we should be giving them more training for helping at home. The airlines are packed on the weekends and I know guardsmen from our church that have been taken behavioral science classes in order to become better security experts. I guarantee you they'd be better at finding a terrorist trying to board an airplane than a TSO. These two men are willing to work airport security if only that were a part of the National Guard's duties.

 

 

I think this is a great idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like my ex. People adore him.

 

However, the detective that investigated him saw right through it all. I even married that man and had no idea. People who work with sociopaths all the time are amazing in their ability to pick them out!

 

Which is why we should stop hiring any Joe Blow off the streets and hire trained, qualified people. Whose presence makes you feel safer? An armed police man/military personnel or a fat, balding middle age guy who just got promoted from bag checker to security?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why we should stop hiring any Joe Blow off the streets and hire trained, qualified people. Whose presence makes you feel safer? An armed police man/military personnel or a fat, balding middle age guy who just got promoted from bag checker to security?

 

I agree. A trained (and screened!!!) person is far better than what we have now.

 

Watch this! A TSA agent was arrested under 5150 for behaving "erratcially" going around saying "I am God! I'm in charge!"

 

 

They are not screening these people well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern is that sociopaths which I think can apply to terrorists IMO are great as coming off as a nice person.

 

Most initiates into Al Qaeda are people on the fringes of society who feel they have no life and nothing to lose. They're not sociopaths, just people who are easily influenced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I emailed my sister and told her the skirt thing is OUT! So, the new plan is tight, pull on gymn pants so they can't be classified as "bulky", a form fitting t-shirt with a shelf-"bra" camisole underneath. So, look out all you dudes at the Louisville airport on Wednesday. If she gets cold, there isn't going to be much left to the imagination! Of course, that ought to make any pervs working security delighted. Short socks so they can see her ankles..workout shoes and a cardigan sweater which she will not wear inside the airport but will lay on the conveyor belt with her carry-on luggage so that she can't be stopped for "bulky" sweater but she will have it on the plane since my sister is the world's most HYPOTHERMIC PERSON on the planet.

 

She's got a cute face so I told her to definitely not wear any makeup and just pull her hair into a ponytail....try not to look attractive since airports here in Michigan, including ticketing agents and other staff, are complaining that the TSO's are targeting, almost exclusively, good looking women under the perceived age of 30. I also told her to get those overnight, heavy, unbelievably leak proof sanitary pads and wear two of them so if she got selected for the gate rape, she at least won't be sore afterwards as a woman in Detroit and another in Grand Rapids plus the two gals from California have reported. I also told her not to carry any kleenex or anything in her pockets because an appearance of pocket bulge is an automatic pat down. My advice was to let her nose run and drip down her face because the added gross factor might make them think twice about feeling her up.

 

Does anyone else have any suggestions? Sis seriously has panic attacks since she found out that her soon to be ex was plotting violent things against her. So, if she gets a pat down these people better have paramedics handy because she will hyperventilate until her heart rate and breathing gets out of control and she passes out. I keep thinking that my sister is going to be the next youtube video on TSA abuse. My parents have already called their lawyer and he's on speed dial for her.

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why we should stop hiring any Joe Blow off the streets and hire trained, qualified people. Whose presence makes you feel safer? An armed police man/military personnel or a fat, balding middle age guy who just got promoted from bag checker to security?

 

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not read all the posts, but does this bother anyone?

 

 

4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

If the TSA can perform an unreasonable search on our bodies, what's to keep a government agency from entering our homes without probable cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if you read the latest news, but thay have eliminated the pat downs for children under 12. I read that last night, I have to find the article.

 

I find it absolutely disgusting that you were forced to cancel your plans.:grouphug:

 

 

EDIT!

Found it: Article

 

Yes they have "said" that children under 12 will not get the pat down but what is not know is what part of the pat down or are they required to go through the scanner...I have a 3 year old who cannot stand still for the scanner...and will not handle others touching her. I have a babe in arms and will not be able to go through the scanner so then I will have to be touched in a manner that is extremely intimate. I am a very modest person (in my opinion) and am scared to death of someone touching my vulva...I even try to avoid the GYN and only go after I have talked myself up and down for days to prepare.

 

Video of a young boy being strip searched by TSA in the middle of an airport. My ds would have freaked and I probably would have gotten myself arrested.

 

We had plans to go to Hawaii this summer. Our first real family vacation but, unless things change we will not be flying.

 

 

 

Sadly this video shows a young child being patted down...the reason the shirt is off (according to what I read) is the boy couldn't stand still and the father took it off in hopes of having the TSA guy let them go. Watch carefully and there is a moment that looks like the TSA is touching the boys zipper area possibly lower...the other video of screaming 3 year old girl is what scares me because I have a dd who could respond at or above that level.

 

ETA: this would have been at the airport that we would have flown home from...I just can't subject my children to that or anything like that...or myself. That is why we will drive 4 days cross country to spend christmas with Grandma...then in Feb...we will drive from coast to coast for my sister's baby shower (1st and possibly only baby). The good news is I will get to visit friends on the way home.

Edited by Murmer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be curious if anyone other than the radical Anabaptists (!!!) do as the Germans did and show up in their skivvies or less. LOL!

 

.

 

????

 

Initially I thought (if I were less modest) that it would be great for shock value if I was called aside for the scanner, I could opt out and then refuse to be patted down, but instead just start stripping off my clothes to prove that I didn't have anything hidden. But there's no way I would do that in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I had to select the other. I'm against it, but I already hate flying for other reasons and avoid it when possible. I can't say it will reduce the amount we fly, since I've already reduced the amount we fly as much as I feel we reasonably can. DH's sister and her kids are in CA, so there's really no other reasonable way to see them. If I didn't already choose driving or the train over flying whenever possible, this might well have been the thing that caused me to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not read all the posts, but does this bother anyone?

 

 

4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

If the TSA can perform an unreasonable search on our bodies, what's to keep a government agency from entering our homes without probable cause?

 

For practical purposes, about the only place the 4th amendment has any muscle left is inside our private homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not getting why people are against this at all? People can get on a plane with bombs hidden in the strangest places.

 

Because we have a Constitution in this country which prohibits searches without just cause. You may think this is okay, because you want to be protected, but at what point does that stop? The government can already listen in on your telephone conversations. Now they can illegally search you AND inappropriately touch you--or even worse, your children--without reasonable grounds.

 

The scans are optional to a point. If you don't want a scan, you get searched.

 

People DO outrageous things, which is why these policies are put into place.

 

 

That sounds good, except that nothing has happened already that these new regs would have prevented.

 

Of course there are good people in the world, and many of us now have to suffer the consequences of that bad behavior. Is it fair? Nope.

 

Then why stop here? Let's search people going into any public venue. The mall, the grocery store, anywhere people are present. Where have we had people die because they were in the wrong place? The post office. Public schools. Your comment does not follow any kind of logic. Instead, any flier is subject to suffering the consequences of a government that is refusing to recognize the rights we have as citizens of this country.

 

This is a gradual erosion of those rights. What about when they begin to come into your home just because they want to? If you don't think this is coming? You are mistaken. (Who could have seen these illegal TSA searches coming five years ago?)

 

And I also don't buy your comment about humiliation being better than death. I don't have to choose, but if I had to choose the very, very, very remote possibility of a beloved family member dying in a plane crash initiated by a crazed bomber (once in ten years), or subjecting my children to the possibility of a random body scan or "pat down" (under any other circumstance, illegal) every time they fly, I'll choose the former.

 

No, no one has forgotten 9/11. We do not live in a society governed by fear. What has been forgotten is our Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then why stop here? Let's search people going into any public venue. The mall, the grocery store, anywhere people are present. Where have we had people die because they were in the wrong place? The post office. Public schools. Your comment does not follow any kind of logic. Instead, any flier is subject to suffering the consequences of a government that is refusing to recognize the rights we have as citizens of this country.

 

Twelve TSA screeners, armed with an explosive-sniffing K-9, checked 663 commuter bags randomly selected from the morning rush at the Lindenwold station Tuesday. Story HERE.

 

TSA agents say a search of the downtown Knoxville Greyhound bus station Thursday evening was not prompted by a terror threat.

The agents said it was just a random check. Story HERE.

 

Protecting riders on mass-transit systems from terrorist attacks will be as high a priority as ensuring safe air travel, the new head of the Transportation Security Administration promises. Story HERE.

 

It's a slippery slope. Kristine's hypothetical may end up being true before too long, especially if people remain apathetic because they think it doesn't affect them (e.g., if they don't fly often, or if they have no other choice but to accept the changes even if they don't like them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are going to avoid air travel as much as humanly possible. However, we will likely make an exception for family emergencies. I hate to say it, but I may make an exception for international travel, just because it's so expensive and time-consuming otherwise--BUT if I could work out another option (ship?) I will.

 

The new TSA procedures are in direct conflict with the Constitution. They are blatantly illegal. It is morally reprehensible to force ordinary people to submit to a naked picture of oneself that includes exposure to radiation or an invasive body search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee I don't know I think given the options that a pat down beats the hell out of coming back in mangled, unidentifiable pieces. I think the poor souls that perished on 9-11 would have preferred a pat down. Seriously has it crossed no one's mind that maybe , maybe there is credible intelligence indicating this is needed right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee I don't know I think given the options that a pat down beats the hell out of coming back in mangled, unidentifiable pieces. I think the poor souls that perished on 9-11 would have preferred a pat down. Seriously has it crossed no one's mind that maybe , maybe there is credible intelligence indicating this is needed right now.

 

Nope. Because credible intelligence leads to specific targets -- not attacking the public as a general course of action. And yes, I do feel this is a personal attack. My husband and I wonder if this isn't a distraction to take public attention away from something else they are doing...

 

We should never be willing to be treated worse than a suspected criminal for "safety reasons." We abdicate the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, search and seizure, due process, and incriminating ourselves.

Edited by LisaK in VA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee I don't know I think given the options that a pat down beats the hell out of coming back in mangled, unidentifiable pieces. I think the poor souls that perished on 9-11 would have preferred a pat down. Seriously has it crossed no one's mind that maybe , maybe there is credible intelligence indicating this is needed right now.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee I don't know I think given the options that a pat down beats the hell out of coming back in mangled, unidentifiable pieces. I think the poor souls that perished on 9-11 would have preferred a pat down. Seriously has it crossed no one's mind that maybe , maybe there is credible intelligence indicating this is needed right now.

 

Surely you jest? This is the government we are talking about. "Credible intelligence" indeed.

 

I seem to remember you posting that you are attorney. Don't you think this is a violation on the 4th amendment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Because credible intelligence leads to specific targets -- not attacking the public as a general course of action. And yes, I do feel this is a personal attack.

 

If we took away all of these safeguards that have been in development since 9/11 and something else happens, then I think people will blame the taking away of any safeguards IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you jest? This is the government we are talking about. "Credible intelligence" indeed.

 

I seem to remember you posting that you are attorney. Don't you think this is a violation on the 4th amendment?

 

Are you saying that there are no competent people in our government? Honestly, I know of several family members and myself who have worked for various levels of government and all were/are extremely competent. IMHO I think it is not fair to all of our hard working government workers to paint them all with the same paintbrush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question regarding the 4th. Generally you consent when you buy a an airplane ticket. If it is your choice to enter a prison, airport etc then you are in effect consenting to a "reasonable" search and seizure of contraband. What is reasonable is where the grey area lies. I think the govt has done a darn fine job of preventing another tragedy in the previous administration and the present. Do I think it could happen again? In the blink of an eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But these aren't safeguards... they are reactions to past actions. They provide a false sense of "security" because people are "doing something." It's like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer -- sure, the fly may die, but there's a whole lot of "collateral damage."

 

So, when a guy gets on a plane with explosives stuffed up their rears, or in their stomachs encased in a condom, are you going to be willing to "at random" strip down naked for a full body cavity search, and be forced to throw up?

 

Since when do other countries say, "this isn't America, you can keep your shoes on?" :001_huh:

 

America is supposed to enjoy the most freedom of any country, and yet we are doing things to our people that aren't being done in most of the world in the name of "safety."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question regarding the 4th. Generally you consent when you buy a an airplane ticket. If it is your choice to enter a prison, airport etc then you are in effect consenting to a "reasonable" search and seizure of contraband. What is reasonable is where the grey area lies. I think the govt has done a darn fine job of preventing another tragedy in the previous administration and the present. Do I think it could happen again? In the blink of an eye.

 

 

Just out of interest do I also consent when I get a drivers license? Can I now be stopped on the highway?

 

Do I consent when I get a bus ticket?

 

Do I consent when I pay a bridge toll?

 

Do I consent on the turnpike?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously has it crossed no one's mind that maybe , maybe there is credible intelligence indicating this is needed right now.

 

According to what I've read, the TSA has had test scanners in airports since 2007, but after the "underwear bomber" incident last christmas Congress approved their widespread installation. Doesn't sound like a new specific threat. ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But these aren't safeguards... they are reactions to past actions. They provide a false sense of "security" because people are "doing something." It's like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer -- sure, the fly may die, but there's a whole lot of "collateral damage."

 

So, when a guy gets on a plane with explosives stuffed up their rears, or in their stomachs encased in a condom, are you going to be willing to "at random" strip down naked for a full body cavity search, and be forced to throw up?

 

Since when do other countries say, "this isn't America, you can keep your shoes on?" :001_huh:

 

America is supposed to enjoy the most freedom of any country, and yet we are doing things to our people that aren't being done in most of the world in the name of "safety."

 

No one has proposed searching body cavities at all. As for other countries, I was just in Italy a couple of months ago and I had to take off my shoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole purpose of the body scan is to avoid more intrusive searches. If you think that conservatives are unified in their assessment of foreign policy as it intersects with domestic policy and maintaining safety within our borders, you are mistaken.

http://non-intervention.com/

It seems that anti-government intrusion is at the heart of these objections voiced on the board. There are other voices who not only loathe government intrusion in domestic matters but also with regard to international matters. I happen not to be in agreement,but find the knee-jerk protectionist reaction laughable. You're all free to conjecture why. Suffice it to say it is for the most serious of reasons but I don't expect people who want their diaper bag protected under the 4th Amendment to begin to comprehend why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole purpose of the body scan is to avoid more intrusive searches. If you think that conservatives are unified in their assessment of foreign policy as it intersects with domestic policy and maintaining safety within our borders, you are mistaken.

http://non-intervention.com/

It seems that anti-government intrusion is at the heart of these objections voiced on the board. There are other voices who not only loathe government intrusion in domestic matters but also with regard to international matters. I happen not to be in agreement,but find the knee-jerk protectionist reaction laughable. You're all free to conjecture why. Suffice it to say it is for the most serious of reasons but I don't expect people who want their diaper bag protected under the 4th Amendment to begin to comprehend why.

 

Rather low opinion of the American people don't you think? How about people who want their persons protected under the 4th Ammendment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently some people on here think it should be and are just fine with it :glare:

 

Sheeple. If they want to give up their rights, then... they can. I won't.

 

I am so happy to see Americans standing up against this, by the way. I have worried for a long time that freedom, and the willingness to stand up and fight for it, was gone out of American people. I'm glad there is some of what made America great in the first place left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm First if you are willing to go through the imaging device there is no reason for a pat down or alternative search. Secondly, at the bottom of the page I linked there are several other countries using the technology for aviation, monorail and bus lines. Your choices for refusing the body scan might soon be only in third world countries who cannot even afford clean water for their citizens as global terrorism is and will continue to be a problem . Profiling is certainly another option but one that is rife with complications as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm First if you are willing to go through the imaging device there is no reason for a pat down or alternative search. Secondly, at the bottom of the page I linked there are several other countries using the technology for aviation, monorail and bus lines. Your choices for refusing the body scan might soon be only in third world countries who cannot even afford clean water for their citizens as global terrorism is and will continue to be a problem . Profiling is certainly another option but one that is rife with complications as well.

 

My mother who has been through it twice was told that about 30 percent of the people who get scanned need the pat down anyway. My mom had to get the patdown both times.

 

I already live in a third world country. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would I care if other countries are using it? It's not justification for using it here. There are legitimate concerns that would cause one to opt out of the scanners, mainly health issues and the fact that ANYONE that is disabled and must use a medical device gets pulled for secondary anyhow...many times the "pat down" causing damage and further issues for those people. So both the scanners and the so called pat downs have medical concerns.

 

I also have an issue with them profiling in the manner they do, rather than using behavioral profiling. Any woman that has a religious headcovering and wears skirts must have a pat down that includes jamming ones hand up against her genitalia so hard it nearly knocks her off her feet and leaves her bruised? There is a reason those women wear a headcovering and skirt...it's not to say, "hey, come cop a feel!" but rather that they believe strongly in the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be curious if anyone other than the radical Anabaptists (!!!) do as the Germans did and show up in their skivvies or less. LOL!

 

 

this guy did, but it didn't work out well for him

 

http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/tsa-airport-screeners-gone-wild-san-diego-again

 

 

 

 

it seems crazy to me ... I've already had skin cancer and don't want more radiation. I suppose I can convince myself to endure a pat-down, but some of the stories out there right now sound EXTREME! And I'm not convinced I should have to submit. For now we have no planned trips, but several business trips are on the horizon over the next year and I'm wondering if we can drive ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that there are no competent people in our government? Honestly, I know of several family members and myself who have worked for various levels of government and all were/are extremely competent. IMHO I think it is not fair to all of our hard working government workers to paint them all with the same paintbrush.

 

Not at all. I know of a handful of people working for the government that I think are competent. But you can't look at the handful, you have to look at the entire bunch.

 

Look at this TSA debacle. Where were the common sense people when they instituted these unconstitutional, ridiculous procedures? Yes, there are a small amount of competent hard working people in the government, but the rest of the incompetent nut jobs have the loudest voices and push their agendas the hardest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a reason those women wear a headcovering and skirt...it's not to say, "hey, come cop a feel!" but rather that they believe strongly in the opposite.

 

Yes, and I makes me want to cry that very modest people are being touched. I was once far more modest than I am now. I was married to my first boyfriend and he and my doctor were the only people who had ever seen me less than fully dressed. Having a stranger view my private parts and then touch them would have left me crying.

 

I feel so awful for people who have to go through that.

 

I am still quite modest, by the way. But I wouldn't be quite as traumatized as I would have been as that young woman I once was. Regardless, private parts are still private to me, and I won't ever show them to a stranger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your choices for refusing the body scan might soon be only in third world countries who cannot even afford clean water for their citizens as global terrorism is and will continue to be a problem.

 

My inlaws emigrated from a third world (Communist) country. They are frightened for America, that so many people seem apathetic to the police state we're becoming in the name of "security" and "safety" - but they've BTDT, bought the tee-shirt, yada yada yada.

 

Global terrorism isn't new. It's always been a problem, and yes - you're correct - it will continue to be a problem. Of course, that's true whatever methods of screening the TSA employs ::shrug::.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My inlaws emigrated from a third world (Communist) country. They are frightened for America, that so many people seem apathetic to the police state we're becoming in the name of "security" and "safety" - but they've BTDT, bought the tee-shirt, yada yada yada.

 

Global terrorism isn't new. It's always been a problem, and yes - you're correct - it will continue to be a problem. Of course, that's true whatever methods of screening the TSA employs ::shrug::.

 

Very interesting perspective!

 

Humanity has many examples of people giving up freedoms, sometimes rather slowly, until at one point they turn around and they are no longer free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I also have an issue with them profiling in the manner they do, rather than using behavioral profiling. Any woman that has a religious headcovering and wears skirts must have a pat down that includes jamming ones hand up against her genitalia so hard it nearly knocks her off her feet and leaves her bruised? There is a reason those women wear a headcovering and skirt...it's not to say, "hey, come cop a feel!" but rather that they believe strongly in the opposite.

 

Yes, and I makes me want to cry that very modest people are being touched. I was once far more modest than I am now. I was married to my first boyfriend and he and my doctor were the only people who had ever seen me less than fully dressed. Having a stranger view my private parts and then touch them would have left me crying.

 

I feel so awful for people who have to go through that.

 

I am still quite modest, by the way. But I wouldn't be quite as traumatized as I would have been as that young woman I once was. Regardless, private parts are still private to me, and I won't ever show them to a stranger.

 

 

These are ridiculous arguments. It matters not how modest the individual is who is being unreasonably groped. It doesn't matter how old or whether they are male or female. Being touched in an unwanted or intimate manner is unpleasant (to put it mildly) no matter who you are. I don't think that wearing a t-shirt and leggings makes it any less traumatizing for one woman than it does for another with a skirt and headscarf. Let's not try to divide ourselves being saying it is worse for one "type" than the next. You have no idea how upset it may be making the person next to you so don't try to judge based on how they are dressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...