TSA

[wbm.livejournal.com]

Hey there. This is a comics opinion of my own creation.



I've never flown. With what's happening in airports these days, I never will. Among my personal issues is a near-total mistrust of authority, & that's under normal circumstances. This developing TSA sitch isn't normal, but what if it becomes the accepted standard?

As many before me have, I try to ascertain where religious practices originate. One tradition's no pork/shellfish makes sense in a pre-refrigeration culture. With another tradition's three rinses of water over the body on the right & 3 on the left, it, too, makes sense when one realizes that a single rinse barely washes anything away; as a one-time floor cleaner, the first layer of water is applied to dissolve/absorb dirt & other substances; subsequent water applications then wash away the dirt-laden water.

So, with these new rules, where will our up-&-coming TSA agents come from? The standards set for the applications process for police, clergy, seniors care & daycare are acceptable if one assumes everyone is & remains reasonable & well-adjusted. And yet this is the tragic, human flaw that abusers find their way through in order to make contact with unassuming new victims.

Unless something changes, & quickly, this is going to become a worst-case scenario without ever seeing another bomb.

We are terrorizing ourselves with penetrating eyes & groping hand condoms.

Comments

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Flying isn't a right, it's a privilege, and IMO if you choose to travel that way then you should agree to follow the security procedures for EVERYONE'S safety.

So, it's okay to override the rights of citizens if they engage in activities that are not rights but are privileges? I don't quite know what this means. To what kinds of activities do we have rights and which are merely privileges in exchange for which I must be willing to give up rights? Are you suggesting that it's okay for the government to overlook basic rights if I want to, say, swim at the beach, go to the mall, buy a car, attend a hockey game, watch porn in my basement? why or why not?


Not really sure how much more invasive we can get than basically being able to see people naked. But personally I would only support a 100% guarantee, otherwise it's pointless. But can such a guarantee ever be made?

I don't follow your reasoning here. Apparently it's your position that the effectiveness of the procedure trumps concerns about rights? If so, why insist on 100% effectiveness, that just seems arbitrary. What if a procedure took the number of terrorist airplane attacks down from 10/year to 1/year? You'd have allowed it if had taken it down to 0, but because it only goes from 10 to 1, you won't?

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Can government have you give up your rights under specific circumstances? It's not exactly without precedent. You give up certain rights when you join the military. You allow the government to get VERY intrusive for security clearances. So yeah I don't see it as being so black and white.

In the name of public safety I understand why this is necessary, although I don't necessarily like it. In fact I won't fly as a result, but that's MY choice. And yes I do realize not everyone has that option, especially those who travel frequently on business. There are no easy answers, but I think it's better to do this than to have people dying, is it not?

If you have any options I'm all ears.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I didn't ask whether the government can have you give up your rights, I asked you to spell out this "right not a privilege" criterion you were using to justify it.

And I didn't ask you to justify the patdowns, I asked why you were setting the bar at 100% effectiveness as a precondition for justifying them.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Not sure what exactly you want as far as criterion. Traveling by airline is not a right, if it is then I'm interested in seeing why you think it is.

And I didn't ask you to justify the patdowns, I asked why you were setting the bar at 100% effectiveness as a precondition for justifying them.
I won't submit to it unless it was 100% certain, and that's my choice. From a legal standpoint I'm not sure about the justification to be honest, I'll let people who know more about the law than I do decide that one. I just think if we're going to ask people to compromise our rights then it shouldn't be for anything less than 100% certainty.

I don't see it as the government forcing this on anyone as no one is putting a gun to anyone's head and saying they have to fly.