Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Right. So what do you do? Do you opt-out and get molested? Do you not fly? Or do you just deal with it?

most porn mega-stars today have to break out with free clips, build a grassroots support. If you got a package, then I say go through security a few times each trip. eventually the right people will notice.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

most porn mega-stars today have to break out with free clips, build a grassroots support. If you got a package, then I say go through security a few times each trip. eventually the right people will notice.

No wonder why they keep sending me back through the machines - I fell for the oldest trick in the book. "Sir, we're going to need you to step back through the machine, there was a problem with the reading on our ZZIDDNGNEISIGH sensor."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

No wonder why they keep sending me back through the machines - I fell for the oldest trick in the book. "Sir, we're going to need you to step back through the machine, there was a problem with the reading on our ZZIDDNGNEISIGH sensor."

exactly. america is about competition. if you can't dance you avoid discos.

guys like you and me will prosper from the new scans. Ty, ggg, thurgreed and them can start taking Amtrak.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

exactly. america is about competition. if you can't dance you avoid discos.

guys like you and me will prosper from the new scans. Ty, ggg, thurgreed and them can start taking Amtrak.

A helpful suggestion from Jeffrey Goldberg:

I've been thinking that in the unlikely event the federal government doesn't listen to the voice of the people and end this naked-picture-taking/ball-groping ridiculousness, we, the American people, might as well gain some benefit from the invasion of our privacy, so here's my suggestion: Perhaps the federal government can take all males over 40 who pass through airport checkpoints and give them that digital prostate exam we dread so much at the same time they're checking us for explosives taped to our scrotums. It would be a very efficient use of time, and this way the government can do what we suspect they already want to do, which is to go all the way and inspect bodily cavities for explosives, while claiming that the assbomb-checking actually has a health benefit. If it is true that the federal government is taking a larger role in health care, why not conduct this prostate exam at a time when we're already being humiliated? Also, mammograms! Let's get it all done at the same time. In fact, the TSA should invite the IRS to set up inspection stations at security checkpoints, so random Americans can be selected for audits, which can be conducted while we're standing with our hands up like mugging victims in the back-scatter machines. Also, we can invite Mayor Bloomberg to visit select checkpoints so that he can conduct searches of our carry-on bags for salty snacks.

eta: Bonus TSA/Penske cross-post.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I see it the same way. However, knowing first hand just how pervy dudes can be, if I was a woman I think I'd feel differently.

I think it's important that we see the silver lining here. I'm expecting fewer pervs to go into the Catholic Priesthood now that they have this option.

[Adder]

I can't believe Penshe hasn't already brought us these:



Gawker

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Would I feel differently if all the TSA workers were gay men? Maybe.

Seriously? *Seriously*?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Right. So what do you do? Do you opt-out and get molested? Do you not fly? Or do you just deal with it?

Anyone know if the "the radiation used isn't necessarily safe" is a legit concern or just hokum to try to stir up anti-scanner sentiment?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Anyone know if the "the radiation used isn't necessarily safe" is a legit concern or just hokum to try to stir up anti-scanner sentiment?

I don't, but would like to know.

But the thing that really gets me is that neither the scanner nor the pat downs can detect things hidden in body cavities. Given that, what's the point? It's essential to catch the terrorist who is committed enough to strap a bomb to his scrotum but not committed enough to, um, insert a bomb elsewhere?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't, but would like to know.

But the thing that really gets me is that neither the scanner nor the pat downs can detect things hidden in body cavities. Given that, what's the point? It's essential to catch the terrorist who is committed enough to strap a bomb to his scrotum but not committed enough to, um, insert a bomb elsewhere?

Mister Ruysbroeck Joins the TSA. Coming soon to a theater near you.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Anyone know if the "the radiation used isn't necessarily safe" is a legit concern or just hokum to try to stir up anti-scanner sentiment?

There's a controversy over how the government and manufacturer measure the scan strenghth. It's a surface scan, yet they average based on your full body mass. So, the strengths given suggest extremely (extremely) low exposure, but it may be that the skin-level exposure is comparable to other types of scans. At least skin cancer's not as bad as a brain tumor. But the limitations on measurements mean you can't get a truly straight answer to the question.

But it's going to depend on total exposures. If you're an occassional flier, even the high levels are unlikely to be of much concern unless you already get a lot of exposure elsewhere.

Note that you get more exposure to radiation from flying to begin with. That's part of why the pilots union has recommended avoiding the scans: they are already dealing with an over-exposed subgroup. For most of us, it's probably of less concern than with pilots. On the other hand, if you engage in professional tan competitions, sideline as a dental technician, or fly several times a week, you might want to avoid them.

I'm not going to worry about it for myself. Though I understand others' concerns, and am feeling more concern about my kids.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Note that you get more exposure to radiation from flying to begin with. That's part of why the pilots union has recommended avoiding the scans: they are already dealing with an over-exposed subgroup. For most of us, it's probably of less concern than with pilots.

Especially transcon/transocean flights and more so any polar routes.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm not going to worry about it for myself. Though I understand others' concerns, and am feeling more concern about my kids.

My feeling as well, esp. re kids. But the alternative of the borderline molestation isn't a good option, either.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There's a controversy over how the government and manufacturer measure the scan strenghth. It's a surface scan, yet they average based on your full body mass. So, the strengths given suggest extremely (extremely) low exposure, but it may be that the skin-level exposure is comparable to other types of scans. At least skin cancer's not as bad as a brain tumor. But the limitations on measurements mean you can't get a truly straight answer to the question.

But it's going to depend on total exposures. If you're an occassional flier, even the high levels are unlikely to be of much concern unless you already get a lot of exposure elsewhere.

Note that you get more exposure to radiation from flying to begin with. That's part of why the pilots union has recommended avoiding the scans: they are already dealing with an over-exposed subgroup. For most of us, it's probably of less concern than with pilots. On the other hand, if you engage in professional tan competitions, sideline as a dental technician, or fly several times a week, you might want to avoid them.

I'm not going to worry about it for myself. Though I understand others' concerns, and am feeling more concern about my kids.

I've talked to our nuclear medicine people about the amount of radiation in floroscopy when dealing with the employment issues surrounding pregnant anesthisologists and surgeons who don't want any radiation exposure. And I'm not too terrified of radiation exposure in general. But, there's no way in hell I'd go through one of those things if I thought I were pregnant or was trying to get pregnant..

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I've talked to our nuclear medicine people about the amount of radiation in floroscopy when dealing with the employment issues surrounding pregnant anesthisologists and surgeons who don't want any radiation exposure. And I'm not too terrified of radiation exposure in general. But, there's no way in hell I'd go through one of those things if I thought I were pregnant or was trying to get pregnant..

You do know that penske just ran out to get one of those fondling jobs, don't you? And he's in drag.

But, yes, I think that's right, essentially making sexually active women of a certain age a high risk category.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Seriously? *Seriously*?

I don't flatter myself to think that gay men are checking me out all the time, but I think I might feel differently if I thought I was be checked out all the time, and I think women are much more in that position than men.

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Anyone know if the "the radiation used isn't necessarily safe" is a legit concern or just hokum to try to stir up anti-scanner sentiment?

Sounds like a legit concern, and like they haven't built the machines with sensors that would pick up a problem if there was one. And the pilots have their own issue.