The Picture of the Day:

So, it looks like a head-covered TSA worker is physically patting down a nun.

The Drudge Headline: “The Terrorists Have Won!”

Patrick Madrid wonders about it.

This seems inefficient and needlessly invasive to me. I don’t think Israel puts all of its fliers through this much grief before they may travel. Maybe we should study their methods? I mean, I certainly understand why we do what we do. I’m just thinking we should be able to do better than this.

Or this.

It’s worth mentioning, I guess, that neither the Underwear Bomber or the Shoe bomber were children, or nuns, or Rabbis or harassed mothers trying to get their kids to granny’s house, or grannies. They could have been, I guess. But they weren’t.

A call to abolish the TSA

I’m working on tomorrow’s column, so I can’t hang around, but please discuss amongst yourselves.

Oh, and this is off-topic but California is still quite insane on its spending.

O/T but a good read: Secularist cheating

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Anchoress | A First Things Blog --

  • kelleyb

    Not looking forward to my trip next week, but I promised to take the grandkids….

  • Kirstin

    In discussing this issue with someone today, we agreed that the new body scanners need to go (except perhaps to used in very, very limited cases) and, as he wrote:

    1. Keep the metal detectors

    2. Bring in explosive sniffing dogs (not many people dislike dogs)

    3. Use other chemical sniffing devices to detect explosive chemicals

    4. START PROFILING!!!! (I mean, how many 80 yr. old grandmothers and 3 year old kids do you have to check…?)

  • F

    The one thing that works, we will not do: profiling.

    God bless those intelligent Israelis. They use it and it does not end up being so pornographic. I’d hate to have some minimum wager checking my xrays.

    When will the American people stop acting like scared sheep and wake up and act to cause change? That is what I’m waiting for. When is enough enough.

  • Dave G

    Israel does not do this. The PROFILE.

  • Dave G


  • Ellen

    I had a co-worker who also worked as a travel agent and had travelled all over the world. He said that El-Al was the one airline where he felt the safest. They profile everyone and make no bones about it.

  • Christine Ibanez

    It’s quite sad, but do you realize that terrorists often dress as nuns or clergy members, then hide weapons underneath? My husband works for the TSA and he sees it ALL every day. Trust me, our security is mild compared to other countries, and it’s for our SAFETY. PS the picture is DATED- the TSA has been wearing bright blue shirts, not white, for at least 3 years. Get your facts straight, and DATE them!

  • Andrew B

    I got a close-up taste of El Al security a few years ago, when I went to meet a friend at JFK Airport. She was flying in on El Al and so I, as I always do when going to the airport, went into the terminal to find her gate number.

    Instantly, and seemingly out of nowhere, several well-dressed, polite by completely no nonsense security agents surrounded me. They politely steered me back out to the sidewalk and down the concourse to the proper gate.

    My friend, when she arrived, laughed and said that she should have briefed me in advance. El Al does not make ANY exceptions. Thus their unbroken streak of prevention and deterrence.

  • dymphna

    Yes, the terrorists have won.

  • ND Envirochick

    As the mother of a nearly 2-year old, I was disturbed and distraught by the video of the 3-year old being “patted down.” I wouldn’t let them touch my child, especially when distraught like that, and if they tried, I’d make the worst scene possible, then call my lawyer, call the press, and anybody else who would listen. APPALLING!

  • Foxfier

    Neither the scanner nor the patdown will work against the threat it’s supposedly a response to, nor will they work against the cavity bombs that the bad guys are already using.

    Dogs and chemical swabs, on the other hand…..

  • Foxfier

    Christine Ibanez-
    you are wrong. TSA is still wearing white shirts, although they also wear blue.
    Check youtube for “Video of Man Refusing TSA Pat-Down Goes Viral” and notice the demonstration of the pat down, done by a large man in a white shirt with TSA on the back.

    Given that incorrect information, I must also doubt your claim about terrorists dressing in Christian religious garb and coming through security with weapons with any frequency.

    I flew out of a decent number of countries, as have the other folks on my ship. None of us were groped by security.

  • Mike Linton

    Wow, what a picture. But ok, so those body scanners are supposed to keep us safe on planes. From people who want to blow up their pants. Sure. But why do they need to put them also in the court house in Castle Rock, Colorado, and Orlando, Florida, and other court houses—what, we’re going to stuff something down our drawers that goes KABOOM when we go and contest our traffic tickets? Oh, and this is interesting. Guess who’s on the board of directors of L-C Communications, the company that makes those scanners? None other than John M. Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993-1997 (he’s also on at least five other boards). Brijot Imaging Systems makes other scanners. They haven’t been so lucky in their board of directors, they have to make due with Grant Green, ex-Assistant Secretary of Defense and past Executive Secretary of the National Security Council—I’m comforted that these guys don’t have to rely on their military pensions to get by. But talk about boosting your stock, get the government to require every airport—and courthouse—to use your product, that’s pretty outstanding.

    And Christine, you say that your husband works for the TSA and that he sees terrorists dressing as nuns and clergy every day? Sorry, but I don’t believe you. Not for a minute.
    Times are tough. I’m glad your husband has a job. But I hope he can find a better one

  • LarryD

    …that neither the Underwear Bomber or the Shoe bomber were children, or nuns, or Rabbis or harassed mothers…

    They weren’t boarding domestic flights, either.

  • Nora

    Why does the body scanner freak everyone out so much? I’ve been through it a few times now (always in Europe), and I’ve been patted down (again, in Europe — Amsterdam), but it was all very professional and quick. Didn’t faze me in the least.

    I don’t think the 3 year old girl situation is cool, but I don’t know what the answer is.

    I think we should be worrying about cargo scanning (random and sporadic at best right now) more than people scanning at this point, but I think the scanners beat the whole shoe thing and belts and jackets, and all that.

  • Foxfier

    Strip-search is strip-search. Even if it’s done with technology.
    It’s not like that poor sports announcer lady felt any better to know that the peeping tom in her room was “only” a video camera–they didn’t really see her! It was only an electronic manipulation of lightwaves that LOOKS like her!

  • Doc

    They won’t use dogs. Muslims consider them unclean, and the whole point of patting down nuns and 3 year old girls is to prove that we don’t offend Muslims. You see, Muslims are Designated Victims (of Christian Crusaders and Western Imperialism) and Catholic nuns are Designated Oppressors (see Crusades and child molestation). The TSA must adhere to the narrative set by the Government/Media/Entertainment industry complex.

  • Nora

    Foxfier — when I go to the airport, I go by choice. I understand there will be scanning, screening, etc., and that I may be subject to any number of technologies or searches. I don’t have to fly, I CHOOSE to fly.

    The sportswriter was sexually assaulted via technology — she did not choose this, she did not put herself in a situation where she expected this might happen, etc.

    Big difference.

    Equating scanning technology with sexual assault is ridiculous.

  • Jim

    My first thought about the nun getting frisked was that it’s probably a necessary evil of the times we live in. Since profiling is a method that people seem to accept as valid for determining screening candidates (at least outside of the ACLU crowd), then we need to accept that ANYONE wearing voluminous clothing is a natural choice, and those who are “obviously not a problem” — such as consecrated religious and clerics — will become the costumes of choice if the terrorists see that they get a pass from TSA. I hope that those who are subjected to the indignity and intrusion can “offer it up” for the safety of all.

  • Kirstin


    Flying is not always strictly a free choice. Many people have to do business around the world and these days it simply isn’t practical to travel by ship. Trains and buses work in proximate areas but even those can be too slow sometimes. And video or audio conferencing is a possibility but sometimes cannot really replace a good old-fashioned face to face meeting. So, yes, technically, flying is a choice, but in reality, for many, it isn’t really.

    There is no reason for 99.999% of flyers to should be forced to either subject themselves to a scanner (which, despire government assurances, has not been proven safe) or to an invasive personal search when other security measures can achieve our air safety.

  • Nora

    If you want the salary and bennies the kind of job that requires travel afford you, then you understand that you have to deal with the inconveniences of traveling. No one is forcing anyone to take those jobs. That’s a personal choice — all those things, jobs, lifestyle, amount of money you need to make to support the choices you’ve made, etc., — all a personal CHOICE.

    The world does not owe you a life in which you get everything you want without having to deal with things you may not like.

    Whipping up a frenzy over this stuff just because you personally find it annoying or uncomfortable or wish you didn’t have to deal with it does nothing at all to proactively ensure the safety of all air travel passengers.

    If there are better methods out there and you know of them, then it’s much more constructive to find a positive way to bring them to the attention of those who can do something about it than feeding into all this hysteria and paranoia over a bunch of anecdotes and sketchy photos and hearsay and gossip about how the TSA are all just a bunch of pervs hoping to cop a feel.

    I’ve done the scanner and the search — several times — and it’s really not that horrible. My husband does it all the time for business travel. It’s actually a more streamlined system than the USA airports where people are frantically trying to pull off jackets and belts and watches and jewelry and shoes and get them in a bin and get them to the point where the conveyor belt takes over and then get in line and wait for the metal detector only to get held up behind the idiot who apparently hasn’t been on a plane since the 70s and has pockets full of change and supersized toiletry products in his or her carry-on, which is probably too big to qualify as a carry-on anyway.

    A picture of a nun getting a typical TSA pat down is sure to shock, but what is the message? Nuns are automatically excluded? Then why not Muslim women in full head-to-toe covering?

    And on what day to nuns _have_ to travel? Again, personal choice, and like all personal choices, each nun can weigh the pros and cons and decide for herself.

    The day we only scan and search males between the ages of 18 and 35 with dark skin and dark hair and eyes and who are dressed as Muslims is the day we can pretty much count on 9/11: The Sequel.

    As long as there are folks trying to blow up planes everyone who gets on a plane is subject to the same rules and regs as everyone else — you don’t get a pass because you’re white or female or Catholic or old or very young. Sorry, but that’s the deal.

  • Foxfier

    Nora, you’re getting confused.

    The strip-search is technology, the having-someone’s fingers-on-your (female chest) and (genitalia of either sex) is the assault.

    Electronic image of one’s naked body is electronic image of one’s naked body. Not only is it ineffective, it’s just wrong.

    Same would be true if the cops were allowed to set up random checkpoints on the highway where they had folks go into a totally enclosed room monitored only by video, strip off, turn around with their hands in the air while someone checked their clothing, then come out.

    You’d be “accepting” that risk by driving on a federally funded road (and they’re all federally funded), so you’d have no room to complain, right?

  • Nora

    I’m not getting confused. You made the connection between scanner technology and some pervy dude who’d secretly cached a video cam so he could check out some babe getting naked.

    In the case of scanning/searching (including the physical search, which I’ve done, palms and fingers version), it is not a sexual assault at all. When you fly, you understand that this may be a possibility. Also, there is nothing in the least sexual about it.

    If you feel that way, however, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to fly, therefore it is relatively easy for you to avoid the situation.

    No one has suggested random checkpoints at which local police officers can arbitrarily choose to pull aside individuals with no cause and strip them in front of a video camera.

    Calm down. Seriously — just calm down. Inventing crazy, hysterical, non-existent scenarios to make your point tends to have the opposite result.

    This is clearly a very personal and emotional situation for you, in which case I can understand why flying isn’t for you. That’s okay — not everyone has to fly. Too many people flying as it is, anyway.

    I have no problem with the scan/search issue, I like traveling, the overall positives outweigh the negatives, therefore flying works for me.

  • Nora

    Also, if electronic imaging of naked bodies is always wrong, then I guess mammograms are out in your book, Foxfier. Because, really, if the electronic imaging done by a perv with a hidden camera is the same as electronic imaging done by the TSA at airports, then there’s really no difference when it comes to mammography or other medical scans, either. Heavens, some creepy little tech might get hold of it and share it with his or her equally creepy friends via YouTube or something.

    Which has actually happened — hospital staff sharing medical info they shouldn’t.

    So I guess it’s all wrong then — let’s all just hole up in our homes and never leave. Or let’s ditch all the safety measures at airports and take our chances.

    That’s what happens when you deal in crazy extremes.

    It’s either an hysterical, paranoid “they’re all just out to rape us!1!!11!” or a terrorist free for all up in the friendly skies.

    It couldn’t possibly something in the middle — a mildly annoying, slightly awkward moment we all agree is better than the alternative and which we deal with like rational, reasonable adults because we happen to live in a world where crazy extremist people do crazy extremist things.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Nora, we weren’t scanning anybody—including males with dark skin and hair, between the ages of 18 and 25—and 9/11 happened anyway. In fact, we were being amazingly generous, and unsuspicious, about Saudi nationals (who comprised the majority of 9/11 hijackers) traveling around the country, going wherever they liked and doing things such as learning how to fly planes, but not land them.

    Are you really saying that strip searching, and scanning, more toddlers, nuns, business people people in wheelchairs and travelers just going to Disneyworld, or to see their moms, will prevent another 9/11? Cuz we all know, it was a pack of toddlers that flew those planes into the Twin Towers? Maybe the warriior grannies will be next? Or the business traveler commandoes? Gotta keep a sharp eye out for them!

    Wouldn’t it be a good idea to do as El Al Airlines does? Profile those who might actually pose a threat?

    (Oh, and RealityCheck Inc. just called; your Islamophobia card has expired.)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Because we all know about the many, shocking incidents where nuns have hijacked planes, right?And, by the way—nuns do a lot of things, such as teach in missions, work in hospitals, travel to convents where they might be needed to work; they have to travel, and they have the right to travel, just like anybody else! So, please, none of this, “On-what-day-do-nuns-have-to-travel”; they can travel whenever they like.

    (By the way, some Islamic authorities claim the scanners, and the searches, are against Islam, and Moslem women should only be searched around the neck, and head. If they’re allowed to go through without an invasive search, then why not nuns? Or does Islamic modesty trump Christian, or Jewish, modesty?)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    And, of course, while everybody’s busy studying naked body scans, and frisking three year olds, they won’t be able to pay attention to, for instance, the guy with 6 different passports, who’se slipping through security, because the personnel are searching an old man in a wheelchair; or, yes, those visibly nervous Moslem males, between the ages of 18-35, who are muttering prayers, traveling in a group and looking around anxiously—hey, we got some fool who hasn’t flown since the 70′s, who’se not picking his change up fast enough! —or those suspicous bags and boxes being stuffed into the baggage section by a “baggage handler” whose I.D. would prove to be fake if you looked at it—but nobody’s looking at it, because WE’VE GOT AN EMERGENCY! A LITTLE GIRL IS CRYING BECAUSE THE TSA TOOK HER TEDDY BEAR! EVERYBODY ON THE DOUBLE, NOW!

    Really, treating all air travelers as criminals isn’t only a violation of civil rights, it’s stupid.

    (And all that scanning and the like didn’t prevent the Christmas underpants bomber from boarding a plane, or the shoe bomber.)

  • Nora


    LOTS of people DIDN’T hijack planes on 9/11. An infinite number of people of various combinations of ethnicities, physical traits, ages, nationalities, religious traditions, walks of life, etc., DIDN’T hijack planes on 9/11.

    So, yeah, BRILLIANT plan — let’s ONLY scan and search those who looked EXACTLY like the handful of guys who perpetrated THAT particular set of heinous acts!

    Because, as myself and others have pointed out, no terrorist or person or entity with the intent to use a commercial airplane would EVER figure that one out and then go disguise himself or herself as any of the many, many, many people the TSA wouldn’t be screening in your perfect scenario…

    As for me being an Islamophobe, nope — I am an equal opportunity cynic — I am of the mind that some nutjob American is just as likely of doing something heinous as anyone else.

    Which is why I’m perfectly happy with everyone getting scanned and/or searched.

    As for my comment re nuns traveling, the emphasis was on the “having” to travel. Not wanting to travel. Not choosing to travel.

    You’re correct — they can travel whenever they _like_. And when they do, they are subject to the same security measures the rest of us are.

    You’re suggesting a screening model that always operates in hindsight, not one that anticipates the untried.

    I think the TSA has a long way to go, but I happen to support the use of scanners and searches as part of a forward-looking effort to filter out ALL threats to air safety. You don’t. Fine. Put your money where your mouth is and don’t fly.

  • Nora

    Fine, “Rhinestone”.

    Let’s just stop trying.

    Fine with me too.

    You know why? Because death doesn’t frighten me. I know I’m going to die, and I know I’m going to die sooner rather than later, and I’m fine with that, too. I’m not afraid of dying, not afraid of flying, not afraid of any of it anymore.

    I’ve seen the worst this world can dish out and it has nothing to do with terrorists or airplanes or bombs or the like. I’ve survived that and not a whole helluva lot frightens me anymore.


    Scream and shriek and spread the hysteria and the paranoia and get all freaked out. You wanna live your lives that way, that’s your deal. Me, I like this world and I like seeing it and enjoying it and I’m not going to let the terrorists win for the time I have left here by freaking out over some stupid seconds-long security measure at an airport. To me, that’s already being dead, and I’d rather die while I’m living than live while I’m dead.

  • Kirstin


    People have to make a living (if we all go on welfare the government will be broke all the sooner!) and in this day and age many of those jobs are not just local. Are we all supposed to be tied to a locality permanently (a form of serfdom!) and be denied flying privileges because we oppose the government violating our rights? I think not. That would be just another nail in the police state coffin. As many have noted, there are other ways to guard against terrorists; no way is guaranteed, but the TSA needs to employ methods that infringe on the least number of people, not the most. And sometimes citizens need to make a public fuss because otherwise the “deaf” authorities simply ignore any “suggestions.”

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Yes, Nora, whatever Nora. Whatever.

    Don’t try offering rebuttals, or an actual argument or try to change our minds, or answer anything we’ve said; just try to make us ashamed for daring to disagree with you; bad us, evil us, how dare we? Whatever.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Nora, what does the fact you’re not afraid to die have to do with anything?

    I mean, it’s good that you’re not—but, so what? What does that do with trying to prevent terrorism? Just because you’re not afraid to die, we shouldn’t try to prevent attacks sensibly? Are we all supposed to say, “Hey, Nora isn’t afraid to die, so why are we bothering with all this scanning and checking stuff, anyway? Why worry about Islamic terrorists? Let’s all just sing, “Just Laugh and be happy!” Or something.

    And why is criticizing the TSA’s policies somehow “Letting the terrorists win?” Once again—-considering that 9/11, and the many subsequent terrorist attacks that have been foiled since then, have been launched by Moslem males, isn’t it a good idea to check out guys who fit the profile? Young Islamic males, between 18 and 35, rather than rounding up everybody who tries to fly? (And no, you can’t play the Islamophobia card, it’s expired.)

    And as for assuming disguises—well, that’s where using the Israeli profiling system would be more useful than just random searches. If a terrorist does assume a disguise, then, presumably, they’ve got their passport, and everything else in order, and, if they’re smuggling something that won’t show up on a scanner, or they’ve put it in baggage compartment—well, getting groped by some TSA person isn’t going to reveal that. That’s where the Israeli method of interviewing passengers, profiling, etc. would help.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    And, again, wouldn’t it be better to, say, concentrate on those likiely to be up to something, or who are really acting suspcious, as opposed to frisking grannies, students coming home for the holidays, returning war veterans?

    The blanket approach really isn’t a good one. Nor is being too politically correct in rejecting profiling, or not paying closer attention to visitors from the Middle-East (And, no, I’m not saying “give up!”, I’m saying we need to approach security in a smarter way. )

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Doc, as you said, the whole thing seems designed to reassure Moslems (those victims of the evil Crusaders!) that we’re not profiling them!

    All the rest is just talk; talk obscuring the fact that it’s just a kind of Kabuki play, intended to make it look as if something’s being done—without really doing anything. (Remember, in the Shoe bomber plot, and the Christmas panties bomber plot, it was the passengers, and observant stewardesses, that stopped both those guys, not the TSA, or any security force.)

  • Nora

    I have offered rebuttals and I have offered arguments, but since my comments get held up for so long and fall in place willy-nilly, they make no sense at all. The fact that you jackhammer two, three, four responses at once doesn’t help, oh Sparkly One.

    Yes. We disagree. I have experienced the scanners and the searches most Americans have not and I think you’re being hysterical and paranoid over nothing. I think they serve a purpose. I think they may even catch more than you or I will ever know.

    And, at the end of the day, part of me understands that the cold, hard reality is nothing is really going to stop the next version of hell the bad guys — whoever they may be — will unleash on us because we can’t yet imagine what that hellacious act will be, and if we can’t imagine it, we can’t stop it. That’s the cold, hard truth, girl.

    But the security checks make me feel safer, and if feeling safer is the best we can do, then I’m for it.

    You want to turn this into a personal crusade, go ahead. Go right ahead and make a big screaming stink at the security checkpoint next time you fly and congratulate yourself on being such a big activist and all.

    Me, I’m cool with what they’re doing — I think EVERYONE should go through a scanner. Everyone. Grandmas, babies, nuns, fully burqua’d Muslim women, dogs, cats, anything with a pulse goes through the scanner and we pick likely suspects AND random individuals for pat-downs.

    And I’d like to see scanning of all luggage and cargo (because commercial cargo ends up on passenger planes) added to that measure.

    I also think if it’s 2010 and you’re STILL trying to walk your big butt through the check point with a 32 oz. Slurpee (as one ridiculous woman was doing just last month when I was flying from California to New York), yeah, you get the private search in the private room even if you’re whiter than Queen Elizabeth and older than dirt. Because you should know better by now.

    I feel fine about the security measures, as do my husband, my sons, and my daughters, all of our friends, their families and so on. I don’t know ANYONE who flies regularly, especially to Europe, who has a problem with this.

    I will continue to enjoy my life and not curl up and cry like a baby because of some security measure that might be momentarily awkward for everyone concerned. Life’s too short.

    As for all this crap about it all being soooo sexual, oh PUHLEEZE. This is the least sexual encounter you will most likely ever have.

    Also, funny how everyone would just have a holy fit if I DARED to suggest it’s not safe to leave your kids around priests, but all of a sudden it’s just perfectly fine and dandy to imply that ALL TSA workers are child molestors. That’s just wrong.

    This is all just ridiculous and shrill and hysterical and uberparanoid. All this nonsense makes me wonder what YOU have to hide, frankly.

    Everyone is free to do what they want — fly or don’t. Make a fuss at the checkpont or don’t. Write your congressman or not. Funny how y’all are all about your own freedom, but when someone doesn’t march in lockstep to your big worldview, they’re all of a sudden anti-freedom and Nazis and child molestors or whatever.

    Like I said, I’m happy with it, won’t jump on the bandwagon, and will continue to fly without being a big whiny baby about it. You’re free to stay home.

  • Mike Linton

    Rhinestone, love the Kabuki line, but let’s go back to the scanners. Ok, so we choose to fly, let’s accept that just for the moment. But sometimes we’re required to go to the courthouse. Why are they putting the scanners in the courthouses, and then keeping the images? Don’t believe me? Look here. link
    Plus there’s the radiation problem. The Allied Pilots Association, the largest independent union of airline pilots, is urging its members not to go through the scanners, maintaining that they are unsafe, a position echoed by Dr. David Brenner, (MD Ph.D., head of Columbia University’s Center for Radiological Research). Even if the health risk is small, which Dr. Brenner isn’t willing to say, “If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant” Brenner told The Mail last June 30th.
    But have you heard of physicians raising serious questions about the health risks raised by the scanners? Nope, not so much. The DC folks tell us the machines are safe. And urge us to use them. And when we decline to us them their TSA agents intimidate us and grop us–as in the picture of that nun–and should we refuse their intimidation and then refuse to fly, as in the case of the “don’t touch my junk” guy in San Diego, the further intimidate us by threatening to prosecute us. Does this many any sense? Not to me, not so far.

  • Foxfier

    Yes, you are confused. You are defending against claims that were not made– that’s a good standard for “confused.”

    Of course, it could also mean that you’re a lying, slanderous blanker, but we’re supposed to assume the best, so we have to think that you’re just misreading us when you slander folks who say looking at someone naked is bad no matter the wavelength it’s on.

  • Beatrix

    “You know why? Because death doesn’t frighten me. I know I’m going to die, and I know I’m going to die sooner rather than later, and I’m fine with that, too.”

    That’s nice, Nora. Admirable, really. But you do get that other people are trying to stay alive and keep their children alive and such, right? Anyway, you seem to be admitting that the security system you’re defending might not be very effective. So we’re agreed, are we, that this security theatre is a) pretty useless and b) creepily invasive?

    Why don’t we do what EL AL does, Nora, and profile? Why wouldn’t that be better? At least it works.

    “I am of the mind that some nutjob American is just as likely of doing something heinous as anyone else.”

    Shirley you jest.

  • Beatrix

    Well, just to be accurate, I guess you don’t find it “creepily invasive”; but I suspect you’re in a minority there.

  • Elaine T

    Seems to me the most important issue is that none of these TSA procedures has worked. They haven’t stopped any terror attempts that I’ve ever heard of. The terror attacks that have been discovered and stopped have been due to other methods, all of which fit the ‘pack, not a herd’ style of security: individuals taking initiative.

    So these invasive procedures aren’t effective, as well as offensive. Let’s get smart and support procedures that do work, like the dogs, the profiling, encouraging initiative. Maybe even putting a lot of it back on the carriers, who can compete on how safe AND inoffensive they can make the planes and the flights and the screenings.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Yes, Beatrix, this is a classic case of confusing the general with the specific.

    Some “nutjob in America” may, indeed, be capable of doing something heinous on a plane—but, the evidence suggests that, at this current point in time, such attacks are more likely to come from Islamic terrorists rather than Hindus, Christians, Jews, ordinary business travelers and 99.9% of travelers who fly. Therefore, you must concentrate on those groups that have shown themselves dangerous in the past, not suspect everybody, because they MIGHT be capable of something.

  • Pingback: Steynian 429st « Free Canuckistan!

  • slavebait

    Hey Nora….does making yourself a
    tatooed slave make ya safer??

    Just passing this on:



    Total Sexual Assualt= TSA.

    CrisisJones Reply:
    November 9th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
    Illegal aliens aren’t x-ray’d!

    Brilliantly PROVES that they are not running millions of Americans through the modern Hollerith machines for their own protection.

    Those machines do one thing. They take a very precise set of measurements that are unique to every individual. Out of these measurements they come up with a unique “Number” for every person put through them. (Number of the beast)

    This unique identifier will be used for all purchases and sales in the future.

    Already in place on the streets of America and in businesses, sports stadiums, etc. are cameras that can recognize this unique identifier more precisely than fingerprints. (From a distance.)

    Once you go through these body scanners you are issued your unique number, and since you have just showed them several forms of ID, they know that you and that number are one in the same.

    That number (Your Number) is automatically recorded to their databases. A simple search of these databases via search query allows them to locate your last recorded location within seconds.

    This is no different than how the nazi concentration camp managers used the Hollerith machines to keep track of millions of prisoners.

    Do not let them scan you, or anyone that you love, or you may as well allow them to tattoo a number on your wrist.

    CrisisJones Says:
    November 9th, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Clearly traveler didn’t get it….

    Biometric scan –> Prison management database –> Biometric cameras that look through your clothes –> Real time tracking of every citizen/prisoner in the Land Of The Sheep Home of the Slave.