• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Tiger99 On January - 6 - 2010

 It would appear that the “Powers To Be” have just been waiting for the chance to implement the mandatory use of  Full Body Scanners at every major Airport… Can’t you just picture Dick Cheney making this statement to all the “spooks in the bunker”, ” All we need is one lonely, impressionable and confused young man of the Islamic Faith  who is willing to set his genitals on fire on a flight destined to the USA over the Christmas Holidays”… 

 Now the scanners are being put in place in very large #’s in many Airports… Of course all the various Security and Law Enforcement Agencies support the use of “Full Body Scanners”  and I suspect it won’t be long before we are subjected to more Private Security evasiveness into our everyday lives and routines… Once we get used to the idea of them being at Airports then it will become harder to object to them being used just about anywhere a large group of people gather… I am sure Government Buildings and The Courts will be next, followed by “random selection use” on citizens at large Stadiums, Arena’s, Schools and any other area deemed at risk for a “Terror Attack”…

   Personally I feel that the mandatory full body scanner is a violation of individual Liberties and is catamount to a “warrantless search” of my person… It isn’t as much that “I don’t have anything to hide”, but the issue of “Why should I allow you to see it”?  Beyond that, there will be the issues of who is manning the scanners and will men be viewing women and vice versa, not to discount the issues “People Of Faith” will have with someone of the  opposite sex  manning the scanners…
The one issue/topic that I haven’t seen discussed concerning the scanners is the societal “Vanity of Western Culture”…  This will soon become an obsession and when you are in the Checkout Lines you will be glancing over these articles:
 
Redbook – How To Lose 20 lbs In 14 Days Before Your Next Flight
Men”s Health – 30 Days to Your Best Body Scanner Body
Cosmopolitan – How To  Look 10 lbs Thinner In Your Next Body Scan Without Diet & Exercise
Woman’s World – What Your Body Scanner Image Says About You
 
 Imagine all the fun the Security personal will be having at our expense… “Let”s see how long we can make this guy hold his breath and keep that stomach sucked in”…  “Hey Rookie. you started your first day at a great time! Today is Point at the Image and Giggle Day”…  I can envision myself being dragged off by security in a “George Costanza” moment after the female manning the scanner pointed and giggled… “That”s Not Me!!!  It’s January For God’s Sake!!! This not Fair I Tell ya!!!  It’s Shrinkage!!!  I have a vacation coming up in July, You’ll See!!!  I’ll be Back in July!!!
It’s SHRINKAGEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!”
 
 Can you picture the lines of men the bathroom standing in front of the hand dyer blowing warm air down their trousers, or women in front of the mirror talking outloud to themselves in self affirmations ( You Are A Woman Not A Girl, Women Have Curves, You Are A Good Person, You Have Power Over Your Mind, You Influence Those Around You)  then strutting out of the bathroom after bolstering up their ego’s to survive the Full Body Scanner…
 
 I think I will stop here and get to work writing my soon to be NY Times #1 Bestseller
 ” The Full Body Scanner Body and Diet Program”
  
 Courtesy of Javaz
Stimulus to bring body scanners to airports

Written by Tiger99

"When You Vote The For Lesser Of Two Evils You Still Vote For Evil" - Tiger99

73 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. javaz says:

    WeCU -- mind-reading device in airports?
    FAST -- polygraphs in airports?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_airport_security_the_future

  2. abby4ever says:

    Adlib: wherever you are, you have mail, I just sent you some. Did I ever.

  3. abby4ever says:

    Khirad: thanks for commenting on the little sub-debate on Islam, Shariah Law, etc.

    Yes, politcal correctness has gone mad in the UK but I think in the past couple of years it has gotten even more serious than that. There seems to be this constant push, push, push, some of it by the Muslim Council of Britain, for more and more changes. At first they said if we would just change our foreign policy, Blair did modify it a bit, and then suddenly it was our domestic policy that was the problem.

    I do think it is appeasement, more than mere political correctness, that has gone mad. As for that new law they passed about inciting religious hatred, well, wasn’t that clever of them. First get the law passed and then start pushing; that way if anyone complains too loudly about the pushing, you can charge them with breaking that law.

    Peaceful Islam I’ve no quarrel with. I don’t believe a word of the religion any more than my friend believes a word of Chritianity, but I’ve no quarrel with it. But radical, aggressive groups like Islam4UK? The ones Gordon Brown is too cowardly to ban? No thanks.

    Hopefully and as you suggest, things are better over in America. Over here things are insidious. When I said ‘You fight, don’t be like the UK and wimp out’ in that post of mine, I was in my mind thinking of how insidious it all is. When something is insidious it can, and eventually will, this by definition, come right up your back before you know it.

    • Khirad says:

      We might agree more than you think. I’m not so much advocating shari’a (I’d rather church and state be completely separated -- a problem in the UK -- given there’s no such stark precedent, CofE and all), and the niqab has no place in even the Qur’an -- I agreed with Jack Straw on that. I’m more finnicky about getting terms right, and identifying levels of fundamentalism and extremism (the difference between al-Qa’ida, Taliban, Salafism, etc.), than being a full-fledged apologetic for shari’a. It’s more that I see it bandied about generically without really understanding what it is, or in pointing out the most extreme versions of it. A few Muslim countries adhere to a moderately abridged form of it (where it is more given a nod and ‘called’ shari’a than anything -- forgive me if I don’t have a list, lots of reading means you only recall parts of things at times). Know thy enemy, no? Plus I have, from the ‘other place’, among others, experience with rabid Avigdor Lieberman, Daniel Pipe’s types, who really are Islamophobes and have given me a bit of a thin skin -- which I get with bigotry of any kind. Anti-Muslim sentiment is a legitimate problem in America. But, no, it does not keep me from engaging in equally legitimate honest criticism, either -- when I know the person doesn’t have another agenda (as we know trolls often do).

      In any case, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” is a universal proverb. I know an equivalent exists in Persian, Hindi/Urdu, and probably in Arabic too, I’d imagine. If you’ve chosen to emigrate, you can’t take your country’s laws with you -- just as there’s the saying for American travelers that the Constitution doesn’t fold up neatly in your passport. Choudary ticks me off more that he’s UK-born and apparently takes his freedoms for granted, too -- besides being an above-average functioning idiot. Islam4UK, was indeed shrewd in how they did that. No accident, to be sure.

      I’d be curious how much foreign policy was affected by them. Certainly, in certain constituencies, perhaps, but I think the pullout of Basra was on an overall opposition to Bliar’s war? I think paying extraordinary attention to demands from extremist groups is not just appeasement (now a sensitive buzzword, given the GOP’s comparing Obama to Neville Chamberlain), but undemocratic. And, if there is one case of them affecting policy, it would be with the Jacqui Smith row? I might be misremembering that -- see, I know how you can feel with American politics! In any case, they need to call an extremist group for what it is -- wishing for more 9/11 attacks and praising the July 7th bombings, are perhaps past freedom of expression, however hateful -- but I don’t know British law -- you’d have to get them on something harder, I would think. I believe they have contacts with terrorism, too, but know just enough to keep their hand hidden or to push but not cross the line -- neo-Nazis are savvy like this in the US. I don’t know the the exact situation. It brings to mind the snafu the Germans had with the NDP -- who, because of infiltration, ironically had to be let to continue and stand in election. I’ve followed the situation with the rise of neo-jihadi mental illness spreading like a cancer in the UK, I’m by no means remarkably informed about the nuances and successive Sturm und Drang of it.

      Speaking of, how soon until elections are called and PM Cameron meets with the Queen? (I couldn’t resist.) You keep bringing up New Labour, and instead of this particular issue I think of the broader malaise with the party, of which this is a part. That they’re in neck-high and headed for the same wilderness the GOP is in here.

      • abby4ever says:

        reply to Khirad: the general feeling is that Gordon Brown is going to wait to the last possible moment to call the General Election. For example…I just pick this next out of hat and to make a point, don’t think of it as the actual date and time…if he were to have only until May 19 2010 at noon to call the election, most think he’d call it at 11:59 am on May 19 of 2010.

        Ha!

        As for your words about my not taking my country’s laws with me if and when I emigrate, I understand. It’s a good point. I happen to be both American and British, though…hey, maybe that’s the problem!

        I have dual citizenship. My husband is British.

        I was aware that there are different schools of shariah law, and I don’t know much about ‘the good school’. But then as I have said before on other matters, sometimes you don’t need a comparison between two things to know that one of them is bad. Other times you do. Here I don’t think I do.

        (I don’t need to know how peaceful things were on the A69 this morning at 8 o’ clock, traffic-wise, to know how unpeaceful things were on the same motorway, at 9 o’ clock. That is, I don’t need a working comparison between smooth-moving traffic and a lorry pile-up to know that the second is bad. Along this line, I don’t have to know what color the house next door should be, to know that the color it is now, is ghastly. I can see that it’s ghastly.)

        The kind practiced here is very repressive with regard to family matters most particularly marriage and divorce; and the Muslim women I know and spoke of in my other post do not want their marriages and divorces… or anything inbetween, like separation… settled under shariah law. Nor do they want to be told they must wear a burka and which kind. The enjoy the freedom they have here in the UK; if they wanted repression they could go back to their countries of birth.

        You make very good points, Khirad, but then you usually do. I love both my countries but, like so many other Brits, I can see what is happening to mine; almost weekly there is some new manifestation of New Labour cowing, behind the scenes, to certain elements in the Muslim community. The latest being that he gave taxpayer money to a particular madrassa without even bothering to first find out what they are teaching there…and believe me, some of them teach some pretty awful things. E.g. killing Brits in a jihad is ok. He was called for this and did not deny it because it was true.

        Some of his cabinet ministers went on tv the night he was charged with it, frantic to justify it, but there is no justification. That’s why they were frantic. They knew what the public would make of it when it hit the papers. The same thing happened with the 85 shariah law courts and the 2000 madrassas. New Labour never announced their existence and never would have. Someone leaked it to the papers about 18 months ago…their existence, that is.)

        Have you lived in the UK in the last 2 or 3 years, Khirad? I don’t mean to pry, just curious…

        • Khirad says:

          No, I’ve never stepped foot, Abby, but would like to. So, I don’t presume to fully appreciate the atmosphere -- which is still, I would contend a far, far cry from anything in America (though there is an uptick in radicalism, it’s not a crisis, and I wonder if conditions are that it could be -- that’s open to debate). And, now that you mention it, I do recall that madrasa story (d’oh, how could I have forgotten it?!), and that would be an excellent supporting argument of what you are talking about -- the free reign of the shari’a courts is out of step too. The thing that bothers me about those, speaking frankly, is that they can cover up and protect abuse of husbands towards their wives and children, etc. Sometimes I think that the state is burdened over simple things that can be resolved better within the community and with common sense (that’s my inner Green talking, not a Libertarian thing), but I was also uncomfortable about Bush’s faith based programs and any cooperation of church and state. What is happening in the UK is beyond belief, pun intended. I believe the Tory bench had a field day with this, and when Brown finally calls for a General, Labour will have what’s coming to them, I’m only sorry that that means a Tory gov’t in the meantime, but Labour needs a big time out to reevaluate. I understand the desire to keep the votes of minorities, but they need to draw a line and find a middle ground on how to represent them, without giving extra deference to louder elements -- and do those even vote Labour, or at all -- secular democracy being so haraam and all? What is especially poignantly ominous about the revelation about the madrasas is that even Pakistan is making an effort to crack down on such madrasas seeing the havoc the Zia-ul-Haq era, Saudi funded ones have caused -- coming back to bite them in the behind major, as we see every few weeks now.

          I’m not sure there is any sort of “good” shari’a applicable in a liberal democracy (or in the modern world), and I guess my point was better suited towards different Islamic fundamentalist regressive movements and how we approach each one can be better tackled if we are aware of the subtle differences in ideology and goals (FLDS poses different sets of problems than the Westboro Baptists and self-proclaimed Aryan “Christians”, for example). As to the least harsh school open to modernism, it would be Hanifi as you may have known, although Shi’a Ja’fari is more so I’d argue (despite its current official State institutionalization) -- but those Persians still ya’badu an-nar -- worship fire! -- so say strict Sunnis. I guess the lesser of evils line of argument may be more suitable to partisan politics, but that’s the only point I was making, however weak -- and besides, I get snooty when it comes to any terms of a comp. rel. nature. They may not matter greatly for me to still get finnicky. 😉

  4. KQuark says:

    Tiger99 I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed this piece and you brought up a poignant subject and had some very salient and entertaining points. It just proves you can disagree with a premise and still appreciate other points of view.

  5. abby4ever says:

    Bear with me, I made a big mistake in that summary. I will try to be brief. (Laughter explodes on the thread. Abby? Brief ???)

    Here it is: My whole premise was that there are only two possibilities. Wrong: there are three. Not that the third one is any prettier than the other two, in fact it’s the ugliest of them all. We can get rid of having to worry about upgrading or not upgrading, at least, by getting rid of terror altogether.

    How? By doing what New Labour has done. Appease. Give them all they want, and the terror will end. You can do what was done over here: give them their Shariah Law courts and their Madrassas, right there in America. Yes, you can do it too! (sark!) Change not only your foreign policy (which admittedly needs changing), but your domestic policy too. Just keep changing and accomodating and appeasing and pacifying until you get it just right.

    Ta-Da! No more terrorism.

    (No more America as we know it, either, but never mind.)

    Thank you for letting me clear that up. (And don’t you dare do it, you fight, don’t be like the UK and wimp out.)

    :]

    • choicelady says:

      First, Tiger, this is a hoot that I very much liked. Because I routinely pissed off the RW, I used to get pat downs fairly regularly. Never been strip searched, thank GOD. My biggest query about these scanners, which, as I understand, are at some remove from the viewer so he/she can’t tell who’s who and since the figure now will have more of a neutral view with no details, my biggest query is HOW DAMNED RADIOACTIVE ARE THEY????? It’s not the privacy, it’s the risk.

      Abby -- I work very closely with several Muslim groups and thus Muslim people. They do follow sharia law -- and it’s GREAT stuff (prohibiting interest wherever possible, honoring peace and banning war against civilians, etc.) so that “giving” them sharia law is irrelevant in America. They have it and use it, and it works fine. They came here to be protected by western laws and freedoms, and the places where sharia law exists are in areas that do not conflict.

      What needs to happen is for us to honor their sovereignty. At least since the Crusades, western imperialism has pillaged their resources, imposed Christianity (that Islam reveres but does not want to practice, thanks), made them second class or even third class citizens. Getting our military and corporate hands off of them would be a major first step. Respecting them and their values another.

      Are there things I dislike? Yup. But they are NOT Islam, they are nationalistic. Female circumcision is national and NOT part of Islam. Supression of women’s rights in general is also NOT part of Islam but of certain cultures.

      Most of the women with whom I work are amazing -- well educated, thoughtful, LEADERS, heads of organizations, spokespeople for organizations, etc. I have never encountered a single moment of disrespect for me, my beliefs, my knowledge, my status and I am friends with the head of the Southern CA Shura Council who respects me as I do him. Two of my closest friends are Muslim women upon whom I rely for not just political support but for trading funny stories about most everything related to our lives. They don’t EVER cuss, but other than that, we’re the same in most respects. I love them dearly.

      So we don’t have to make America different to embrace Islam. We just have to make America stop being imperialistic, and remember we are a nation of diversity and immigrants.

      Coexist. We can do that. Peacefully coexist.

      • abby4ever says:

        To choicelady: Spare me the lecture, or what seems to be a lecture, please. You seem to be assuming an ignorance of Islam on my part that I don’t have. You had only to ask and you could have saved yourself most of a post.

        I don’t know what kind of Shariah Law you are talking about, but as you describe it, it is unrecognizeable from the kind I am talking about that is now practiced over here.

        As for Muslim women, I have university friends who are women and Muslims, one prof who’s the same, and my huband and I are friends with a Muslim couple, we spend lots of time with them. My husband and I are not as ignorant of Islam as your post, at least the tone of it, suggests.*

        In any case, we seem to have very different experiences of the effects of allowing Shariah Law to be be practiced in a Western democracy, over here it has done nothing but wreak havoc. (The Muslim women I mentioned above…all well-educated, by the way… want nothing to do with it, as it is practiced over here, and with good reason. ) But that’s only the beginning, there are the Madrassas, there is the ‘inciting religious hatred’ law, which favors radicals and muzzles ordinary citizens, there is plenty. All of it negative and Brits are getting fed up.

        *I’ve just read down the thread a bit and seen more of your input. I should mention that I’ve also done plenty of reading on Islam, primarily because of a ‘deal’ I made with one half of the Muslim couple I mentioned above. The wife, and a dear friend of mine. We agreed to read up on each other’s religion, I on Islam and she on Christianity. I’ve also taken two classes on Islam at university that included some very rigorous debate in study groups we had.

        Don’t worry about me; you just worry about that element of Islam that isn’t peacful and doesn’t want to coexist with other cultures and religions, peacefully. (As for ‘white supremacists’ and ‘homies’, worry about them too, I know I do.)

        • AdLib says:

          Abby, Choicelady shared her experience and POV which admittedly differs from yours but differences of opinion should never be taken personally here.

          Any conversation dealing with culture and religion is by nature subjective. Each of us uses our own experiences that may indeed convince us that we recognize the way things are globally but as this conversation displays and Khirad refers to, there can be many factors, especially social and environmental, that make one’s experience unique from someone else’s in a different environment.

          With that in mind, and with issues such as religion and culture being as charged as they are, all members’ perspectives need to be respected and discussed here with a recognition that being affirmative about one’s own POV is not in turn being disrespectful of someone else’s.

        • Khirad says:

          In any case, we seem to have very different experiences of the effects of allowing Shariah Law to be be practiced in a Western democracy, over here it has done nothing but wreak havoc

          I think this is what it comes down to. We are in drastically different situations, and American Muslims seem to be far better assimilated. I have followed the situation, since long before the Jack Straw “controversy”. That Choudary guy is an idiot and a takfiri. He calls for shari’a for all. Ha! That’s like asking gentiles to follow the mitzvah, it’s not meant for non-Muslims! What’s happening in the UK is political correctness run amok, I’m not scared by a few compromises here and there, as long as there is oversight, as I believe there is with the ultra-orthodox Jews who are delegated certain authority by the courts. As to shari’a, don’t misunderstand me, I don’t like it. But there are different schools, and it’s not as if it can’t (and should) be adapted for a new time, either.

          As one young Muslim man said to Choudary and his small, but loudest contingent:

          “These people ladies and gentlemen, have a good look at them. They actually think if you kill children, if you kill women you go to heaven. You have no chance in hell. You are a lawyer, Mr. Choudary -- can I speak. You are a lawyer and you would know you can’t go to heaven unless you claim insanity. This is not an ideology. It’s a mental illness.”

          Here’s the problem. These people incite and yet are protected by those laws. It’s farcical. And I hope there’s more fight within. These idiots who use the freedom of speech and rights afforded them to subvert and abolish them is indeed nauseating. I think the broader community, those Muslims you know, may be more peeved with them than any BNP ultranationalist.

      • KQuark says:

        I’m glad you brought up the point about the radioactivity of these devices. We can’t assume they are safe just because they say they are safe. I will start to track this technology more closely and see how much radiation we are talking about with these behemoths.

        • Tiger99 says:

          http://www.rapiscansystems.com/peoplescreening.html

          This is the company mentioned in the Stimulus link posted in the article… From what I can find so far is that they are “Low Dose” passive millimeter wave technology that are claimed to be “safe”… Nothing really substantial has been written that I have been able to find concerning “Health Risks”… They told us CAT Scans and MRI’s were nothing to worry about either , but recently have changed thier minds…
          As far as I can tell if you object to be scanned for health risk the Government’s stance is no problem just submitt to manual searches…

        • choicelady says:

          Thanks KQ -- I understand from the decades-long discussion about nukes as expensive boiling pots, that several leading nuclear experts say there is NO safe level of radiation. Your expertise would be very helpful here. I fly a lot, and as a teen I once had full mid-section radiation from a lazy doc who did that rather than a much simpler test only to find out there was nothing wrong. I don’t want MORE “sunshine units” on my body, thanks. The fact that these things don’t actually reveal bone doesn’t make me complacent. I appreciate your efforts.

        • bitohistory says:

          KQ, the joke at the appointment desk at my cancer center is “Another scan? You guys are going to give me cancer.”

    • KQuark says:

      Understood. What Chamberlain did with Hitler was actually a bad example of appeasement when Bush used it.

      Now how the late Roman Emperor Valentinian III appeased Attila the Hun was true appeasement because he gave Attila most of the Roman treasury out of fear.

      I’m sorry but I’m still too ignorant on the whole situation in Britain with New Labour. I really think what you are describing will not happen with the US because for the most part Al Qaeda is not even seeking appeasement. Their goals are purely nihilistic.

      • choicelady says:

        You are very right about this KQ -- Al Q’aeda is to Islam what the Army of God is to Christianity. They have made up a doomsday scenario in which they and only they will triumph (in their own minds).

        What we all need to be mindful of, however, is that there is a thread of white supremacy running here in our native white guys that embraces Al Q’aeda. August Kreis who heads Aryan Nation think AQ is just dandy because both of them are anti-modern, anti-liberal, anti-feminist, anti-Jew. My deepest fear is that as Southern Poverty Law Center shows a marked increase in hate groups, not enough attention is being paid to this convergence.

        When I board a plane, these days I’m far less worried about the brown man next to me than the blonde with the scary tattoos. We have dismissed these guys too lightly as white trash buffoons, and, of course, they mostly ARE, but not all of them. One has GOT to remember Tim McVeigh and know that the whole story of him and his relationships has never been fully told. Watch the white supremacists in your neck of the woods very carefully.

        If you all want to hear a friend of mine talk about this, go to “The Story” (www.thestory.org) and go to the archives for Dec. 2 “Two Lives, One Mission”. Rosemary Stewart-Stafford spent several years of her life going under cover to watch our homegrown terrorists. It’s a story you’ll want to hear.

        What’s not on that interview is that I was with her over a couple of the most terrifying days I’ve ever spent when she got “outed” and I was with her. I looked into the face of stone killers who’d have done her in if they could. The only thing standing between them and her was me -- they did not know who I was and did not take a chance I might be a fed. I knew her story was true, but now I’ve lived a small part of it with her.

        I am far less afraid of Al Q’aeda (though I AM afraid of them!) than I am of America’s homies.

        • kesmarn says:

          c’lady, you have GOT to write a book. What amazing experiences you’ve had. You and e’cat as well, who wrote a fascinating post about her youthful experiences in Europe and Israel earlier. What a wealth of wisdom we have here. It never fails to astonish me.

          • choicelady says:

            Dear kesmarn -- all of us here have amazing stories. We would not be here if we did not. No one comes so thoughtfully to this site without incredible experiences that have made them think deeply about what life means, what our role is, what we can contribute. I’d love to know yours! I cracked up at the ‘short gene’ comment you made since I have the same! Perhaps that’s what makes us take harder looks at the world -- we have to stand on tiptoe and peer over people’s shoulders! Might as well make the best of what we see, right? So tell YOUR story -- the kesmarn “over the shoulder” experiences. We all can learn from you.

            • kesmarn says:

              c’lady…we’ll just have to think of ourselves as “short ‘n’ sweet.”

              The only minor claim to fame I have is that I actually did have a “former life” before I got my RN. And that involved a BA in History/Chinese, during the course of which I received a grant to study for a year at the East-West Center in Hawaii. The same place that was attended by Barack Obama’s mom! It was quite an experience. But I’ve forgotten more Chinese than I ever learned by now!

              BTW, my minor was theology.

            • kesmarn says:

              Chinese grammatical structure is relatively simple, without a lot of the modifiers that English has. But there are four inflectional tones that can be tricky to master, and the differing inflections of any given syllable (e.g. the sound “ma”) can totally change its meaning. But it’s the written language that can be a real bear!
              Mastering that requires a major feat of sheer memorization. The language is not at all phonetic, so you literally have to memorize every character. And you need to know at least 2000 characters to manage just relatively straight-forward newspaper stories. It’s a study that can go on for a lifetime. Sadly, I abandoned ship after I graduated!

            • choicelady says:

              Wow -- that’s fascinating! It’s my understanding that Chinese is very hard to learn, so it’s quite impressive. See? That is a “former life” worth discussing! I can’t hold a candle to that kind of courage to try the unfamiliar and the accomplishment of having done so! Amazing! I’m in awe!

      • abby4ever says:

        I am happy to hear this, KQ.

        Shame about the nihilism, though.

        :]

      • Chernynkaya says:

        Yes. AlQaida does not want anything except destruction and possibly --if pressed-- world conversion to radical Islam, which is the same as wanting nothing, since they might as well insist that no one grow taller that 5’9″.

        • abby4ever says:

          LOL !!! Well put, Chernyn. But don’t underestimate them…them or any radical sect or group. We must not overestimate them but we must not understimate them either, the latter is dangerous. They have some strange notions about conversion to Islam or even radical Islam. They aren’t above forcing people to convert (this has been true historically… upon occasion).

          Not that that is all that different…in principle, anyway… from the West trying to convert people in the Middle East to Western-type democracy, at gunpoint, as it is sometimes put. If these jihadists ever got control of a country, they would force their version of Islam, both religious and political, on that country. It’s why Obama doesn’t want Pakistan to fall to them or extremists like them.

          You know all this, I just recap.

          • Chernynkaya says:

            Actually, Abby, I would really like to discuss the UK’s appeasement activities. That sparked something in me. But I’m getting ready to turn in soon, but I hope we get back to this!

  6. abby4ever says:

    Wow, the debate on this thread should be telling us something, and it’s not pleasant. Something about the pickle we have got ourselves in, or, rather, that the terrorists have put us in.

    Sorry this comment is coming a bit late.

    In this debate prompted by Tiger’s article, we have those like KQ who think we should take advantage of this state-of-the-art security stuff, that we’d be foolish not to upgrade every time something new becomes available (hope I got that last right, KQ); and we have those like Chernyn who find it way too intrusive and not good enough anyway: it can be got around where the terrorist is innovative enough.

    One thing is clear: we either keep increasing the level and kind of security measures that become available, or we don’t. If we do, we lose or seem to lose more and more of our freedoms, rights, and dignity, next thing you know and drawing from something a poster said here, they’ll be having us walk stark naked through the airports. If we don’t, that would seem to make us more and more vulnerable to attack and we might become one of the most unsafe countries in the world, which in turn will make us a tasty target.

    Either way, we’re toast…thinks the terrorist with a big smile. We either become less and less free, to increase our safety, or we shove safety aside to preserve our freedom (and dignity and the like). This is the very dilemma that, and lets’s be honest here, GWB had to solve and the very one Obama faces. Only two possibilities left and both of them are ugly ones.

    On the surface, the terrorist wins. Because here, there is no third possibility. All there is is trying to choose between freedom and dignity, and safety and peace of mind. Quelle choice!

    People talk or like to talk about ‘striking a balance between the two’, as if this were the third possibility that I have said doesn’t exist. But in my view, this is either a kind of delusion or it’s not and those talking about it are simply trying to comfort the masses. You don’t hear them saying much if anything about there being only two (ugly) choices; they like to make speeches about balance and compromise and ‘getting it just right’ (like Goldilocks’ porridge).

    Sorry to be so downbeat here but it just falls out of looking at the debate on this thread. When we hear ourselves debate like this, it drives it home, and we end up saying to ourselves: “Uh-oh, are we in a pickle, or what? And what’s that cackling sound in the other room?”

    It’s the jihadist, laughing his head off.

    • KQuark says:

      The terrorists won because of the way we reacted to 911 but it’s a Catch 22 because if 911 had been prevented they would have definitely been thwarted at least that one time. It’s like with the first WTC attack in 1993 when it was an attack but did not serve the purpose the terrorist wanted.

      The practical me just wins out in debates like these because if there is technology we don’t use and a terrorist attack occurs no one is going to care less about the fact that these scanners see through cloths. People will be reactionary and blame the government for not using the scanners and the unintended consequences of a successful terror attack AGAIN will be far worse than preventative action.

      • abby4ever says:

        Ok, I will you give that. Provided you mean by ‘our reaction’, Iraq and not Afghanistan. Do you?

        Maybe what I am talking about is more a perpetuation of that victory, of their keeping the high ground once they emerged victorious. This by keeping us between a rock and a hard place.

      • Chernynkaya says:

        If you mean politically--i.e.that if there is another successful attack, you are right--the Repugs will regain power. But long-view, in terms of the kind of society we will be forced to live in, I disagree that it would be worse if we don’t do all we can to prevent it. Of course they’re will be a reaction from people, but that’s no way to run a country-- as Frank Schaeffer said, we cannot reorganize village life to cater to the village idiot. KQ, I do hear what you are saying and I am not disputing your analysis of how this country will react to an attack. I just disagree with your idea that we must do all we can.

        • KQuark says:

          I really don’t care about the resulting politics to be honest. What I am saying is if there is another successful spectacular terror attack MANY MORE rights will be in jeopardy not less.

          I do appreciate your argument and part of me agrees with it. In this case this debate is pretty clear, use these types of technology or don’t use them. On balance even though I’m conflicted I think they should be used. I’m fine with agreeing to disagree on the last point.

    • Khirad says:

      I hope me joking about it is understandable, it is indeed a thorny issue. I would agree, I often quip that part of the neo-jihadi’s plan is to inconvenience us to death. They certainly have succeeded in that. My other problem with this whole new tenor and revived crap-your-pants mentality to every little thing is the cons jumping all over profiling, itself another possibly more thorny issue.

      • abby4ever says:

        I don’t mind the humor at all, Khirad, in fact I enjoy it.

      • KQuark says:

        Think how the neocons would jump on the opportunity to say a terror attack occurred because Obama did not put the best technology in place to stop the evil horrible terrorists. Their conclusion would be Obama is a terrorist enabler and appeaser and it would sell to many frightened Americans whether we like it or not.

        • Khirad says:

          At the other place, I saw the same old “apology tour, Obowma, shipping IEDS to Afghanistan” meme. Now, the last part of that really shows you their mentality. Read the subtext into that, as well.

          Oh yes, they would rejoice at an attack. By the way, Steele’s arguments against KSM being tried are increasingly entertaining how much he has to twist and contort what the Bush admin did. That’s another subject, though…

          • KQuark says:

            That’s why you cannot even debate issues like these with trolls. We can have debates here on the Planet because people respect each other and don’t resort to hyperbole to make their points.

            • Chernynkaya says:

              Respect is the most important thing, but I find that I have no desire to discuss anything with people whose minds are completely closed. I don’t care at all if someone has a position that they hold on to, but when someone declares that, say, illegal aliens will be getting free health care at this point-- justs insists on spewing right-wing lies-- I have no patience to debate them, no matter how polite they may be. I just no longer have the energy. And I feel it’s a waste of time.

            • KQuark says:

              I hate arguing with pure contrarians which most trolls are. You say black and they say white. There simply is no intellectual honesty or respect there at all.

        • Chernynkaya says:

          He can do as much as possible and he will still be blamed if there is an attack.

    • Chernynkaya says:

      Great summary, Abby. That’s exactly what the debate is and as you so eloquently said, there really is no third way. Yet I hate that they have won.

      • abby4ever says:

        Don’t despair, it’s temporary. We’ll beat them yet. Why? Because they will overextend themselves. Why? Because they are arrogant. There is no third choice now, but there will be…says abby the idealist.

        • KQuark says:

          Terrorism will always be a successful TACTIC. It has been for millenniums under different names.

          But terrorism is only a successful STRATEGY depending on how you react to it.

          • abby4ever says:

            Agreed, and I know how we reacted, in the end anyway, to it over here in the UK. See the other post I just did that begins with ‘Bear with me…’.

            Their strategy for the UK doesn’t bear thinking about but we have to because we are seeing fresh manifestations of it every day. I won’t say any more than that, not tonight, anyway…I harp about it over at hp sometimes.

      • KQuark says:

        Ditto it was a great summary by abby and expressed the complexity of the issue very well.

  7. KQuark says:

    I disagree this is an illegal search based on the precedents that have already been established. Searching for metals within you clothing is already being done with mag detectors in airports. People are being “padded down” in airports these days without warrants. People are even being strip searched without warrants. This is a much higher resolution scanning process but the precedent is there for it’s legality.

    Sure it’s fun to joke and be immature about the process it’s only human nature. I personally find the shrinkage joke you made referencing Seinfeld to be very funny. That’s why I think the scanning should be done by professionals and handled in a very professional way.

    If you don’t want to be scanned you can always be stripped search if you want or choose not to fly. As far as I know flying is not a right.

    This is one of those perfect world liberal arguments to me and we just will never live in a perfect world. The bottom line as well is these scanners can save lives not in the perfect world but in the real world.

    Personally I most concerned that they get the right scanners and put the most professional people and procedures in place. Doctors are not considered child molesters when they examine children because they are professionals. The ends are means are important in this case.

    • javaz says:

      That’s the problem though.
      Look at the security in the airports.
      Do they look like they’re highly trained professionals or rent-a-cops?

      I’ve been patted down or fondled because I always set off the metal detectors -- the fillings in my teeth? my magnetic personality?
      I don’t know why, but it’s rather embarrassing, being felt up and having your boobs squeezed with so many people watching.
      It’s one reason I quit flying.

      • Khirad says:

        If they hired security officials like they hired hostesses and waitresses I’d be first in line to be patted down. Sigh, so much for my perfect world argument… but seriously, how can we make that happen? 😉

      • KQuark says:

        That’s exactly why I said who and how it’s done is my biggest concern. I also don’t pretend that the system will be perfect.

        For sake of argument I would really like to know if this screening would have thwarted the failed Christmas attack earlier in the process.

  8. Emerald1943 says:

    Tiger! Brilliant! Hilarious!

    I COULD imagine Dick Cheney deep in the bowels of the CIA….LMAO!

    But seriously, I am with you 100% on the “warrantless search”! There is no way that they could defend that in a normal court of law…Civil Rights -- remember those??? But then these are NOT normal times. I have some mixed feelings about the desire for safety and the desire for my privacy. I don’t know where I would draw the line. I will have to give this some more thought.

    Good article…timely subject! Good going there!

  9. Chernynkaya says:

    Here’s some more news about body-scanners and once again, it’s all about the lobbies and little about actual security.

    The Washington Examiner last week ran down an entire list of all the former Washington politicians and staff members who are now part of what it calls the “full-body scanner lobby”:

    One manufacturer, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is American Science & Engineering, Inc. AS&E has retained the K Street firm Wexler & Walker to lobby for “federal deployment of security technology by DHS and DOD.” Individual lobbyists on this account include former TSA deputy administration Tom Blank, who also worked under House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

    Chad Wolf

  10. Chernynkaya says:

    Tiger, I could not agree more. This is becoming very intrusive and as you say, it violates the Unreasonable Search and Seizure clause of the Constitution, I believe. We are so frightened-- terrorized-- that we gladly give up our privacy for some small sense of security. And I believe that this is exactly where the terrorists/Reptilians want us.

    Besides, there will always be another iteration of explosives and the scans wont help. I also agree with Javez— even though I will probably fly again, I certainly don’t ever want to!

    • Tiger99 says:

      Even if we are able to make flying totally secure we can’t make everything in our lifes secure..
      Oh. and remember when your in the Checkout line and see one of those headlines that you saw it here first… Heh Heh Heh..

      • Chernynkaya says:

        Those were hilarious-- your idea will make you a ton of money and then you can buy your own jet! The really ironic thing about those rags is that along with the stupid diets- they also have scrumptious high-calories recipes in the same issue.

    • abby4ever says:

      I don’t like the scan either but…

      What would we say if they, using this scan, caught a terrorist 10 minutes before a flight with some liquid explosives… showing right where that gun is showing in the image of the girl on the right, above? We’d say “Bravo!!!”

      And what do we say when we get to talking about 9-11? We say: “It happened on their watch; they should have prevented it.”

      And what would we have said if the underwear terrorist had brought the plane down? Maybe this: “God, some countries have scans that would have caught that stuff on him; why don’t we?”

      The same kind of thing we said before the Fort Hood shooter: “Monitoring our emails is an invasion of our privacy and a violation of our rights.” But after ? I read posts where people said in so many words: “They had clues, they were watching his email exchanges, why even do that if you don’t act when you see something suspicious? ”

      It’s true. It’s part of the inconsistency of being human.

      • Chernynkaya says:

        Well, what is to say the explosives weren’t in a tiny shampoo bottle? Or in a tooth for that matter? I guess I object to a needless scan because someone with intent and enough money can almost always overcome whatever measures-- short of a full body MRI for everyone--that we put into place. And what about luggage-- you could put all kinds of plastics in that.

        • KQuark says:

          Just because security can be beaten does not mean you give up on the state of the art security that exists.

          • Chernynkaya says:

            That’s a very good point. But just because there are serious threats doesn’t mean you do whatever to reduce those either. Why not strip search everyone? Obviously, there are limits not only on what we can do, but what we should do. To me, full body scans are going to far for too little gain.

            • KQuark says:

              But how is using the best available technology a limit? It literally expands the limits of security. Less not more people would be strip searched. Right now they don’t strip search everyone first and foremost because it’s not feasible.

              What happens if a bomber gets through our current system but would have been stopped by these scanners?

              Is everyone going to praise the TSA for letting people have more rights. No everyone will blame them for not putting these best available technology in place. Believe me the unintended effects limiting our freedom will be even more draconian after a successful attack.

      • bitohistory says:

        Abby, doesn’t London have CCTV every 15 feet? Cameras for cars coming into the city and…….?

      • Tiger99 says:

        I agree to a point abby, but the underwear bomber was allowed on board with help of someone and security measures were bypassed… This would be a non issue if the measures in place would have been implemented..

  11. javaz says:

    I am against this scan, but honestly, I don’t care much since I have no intention of flying anywhere ever again.
    I am old enough to know better than to never say never and if the occasion arises, I’ll worry about it then.
    Of course, by then, we all might just be naked while standing in line as those in front of us are bending over and grabbing their ankles -- to use one of Rush’s male fantasies.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features