<p>From a numbers perspective, these scans will put more people on to the roads this holiday season, and because driving is more dangerous than flying, these new security measures will actually lead to more dead Americans than if they had left well enough alone.</p>
<p>Not to mention that you’re more likely to get cancer from the screening than to die from a terrorist attack.</p>
<p>poetgrl: Completely agree with you…have the groping done in public. That is what I did 3 weeks ago. Witnesses were my 17 year old daughter, a friend and her 17 year old daughter. I was even asked by the TSA agent if I wanted a private “groping” and I said “No, I want everyone to see this”. Not sure if she appreciated that and yes I do believe I was sexually molested by her.</p>
<p>Here is an article that I enjoyed about this whole issue:
[TSA</a> Reform to stop abuse](<a href=“http://www.dba-oracle.com/travel_tsa_reform.htm]TSA”>TSA Reform to stop abuse)</p>
<p>
Nope, we need 3 airplanes: one for the folks who don’t mind being sexually molested in public by strangers, one for the folks who want to totally dismantle TSA, and a third for fliers who have been thoroughly profiled with all knowledge available through current intelligence. I’ll be on that 3rd plane. Good luck to the rest of you.</p>
<p>2ndof3, thank you, I really needed that good laugh!</p>
<p>If this is really going on with little kids, we do have a problem. Thinking back to when my kids were young, I don’t know how I’d have reacted if they had to have an “enhanced pat down.” I think the whole thing is just far too confusing for a young child to process. I can imagine my four year old asking me, “Why did that man think I was a bad guy?” :(</p>
<p>Adults, on the other hand, at least understand the reasoning behind it (even if they don’t agree with it or believe it to be ineffective).</p>
<p>Also just saw this well-written commentary:</p>
<p><a href=“What if we had no air security checks? - CNN.com”>What if we had no air security checks? - CNN.com;
<p>
</p>
<p>momofsongbird: Save a seat for me on plane #3.</p>
<p>Lafalum: The thing I would disagree with the editorial writer about is medical safety (or lack thereof). Whatever one might think about the reasonableness of the new security measures as security measures, I strongly object to being subjected to the new machines when they have not been tested and proven safe. Until I see some data, I will be opting for the pat-down, as unpleasant as it might be.</p>
<p>My line for the pat-down: “Don’t rub the lamp if you don’t want the genie to come out.”</p>
<p>Son of Opie: That line would certainly beat, “Don’t touch my junk”. Wow!!! Can you just imagine how many dudes would surround you for that comment?</p>
<p>“Does this screening come with a happy ending?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lafalum84, according to an earlier post in this thread, the TSA director backpedaled and stated that children under the age of 13 would not be subjected to the enhanced patdown. For what that’s worth…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m really surprised we haven’t heard from them in a big way by now…</p>
<p>I guess removing your shirt isn’t considered an “enhanced” pat down because the TSA agent didn’t grope the boy- just told him to remove his shirt.
It seems that the procedures are inconsistent from airport to airport.<br>
So glad my “babies” are over 21!</p>
<p>To paraphrase a previous poster, “What is more sensitive than a 13 year old boy or girl?” It sure doesn’t make me feel good that young teenagers are subjected to this type of assault. Can you just imagine a father and daughter traveling together and some TSA agent says they need to pat down the daughter? Would a 14 or 15 year old girl want that done in public view and for that matter would she even want her own father to watch something that is so humiliating? Then what…a private pat down without the father there? It’s a recipe for some father to completely lose his mind.</p>
<p>^^^^Count my husband in on that. Our 16 y/o would possibly be very upset by the enhanced pat down. Regardless, my husband would possibly take it worse than she. Not a pretty image.</p>
<p>moonchild: I think the inconsistency from airport to airport are inherent in a bureaucracy the size of the TSA. I’m betting all large government agencies are the same way but we (the general public) don’t get up close and personal too often. Some poor souls deal with the IRS and have a taste of it already. The closest most of us probably come to incompetent bureaucracies is our state DMV or possibly the Post Office.</p>
<p>I sure wish all of my kids were over 21. Hopefully all of this TSA garbage will be behind us by that time.</p>
<p>Not flying is simply not an option in many cases. I have to travel for business. My inlaws live in Europe, so we have to fly to visit them. S2 goes to college a 14 hr drive away. I would not be comfortable with him driving home for Thanksgiving, even providing the weather cooperated.</p>
<p>I am willing to undergo some reasonable procedures. I have not yet encountered the enhanced pat down, but H had to go through the full body scanner (without realizing it until it was over) this summer. If I thought any of these procedures actually made us safer, I wouldn’t be so skeptical. THey are so haphazardly applied, that it is almost meaningless. I can think of a dozen ways that dangerous products could be snuck through security using current procedures. </p>
<p>I did receive a pat down several years ago. It was a Reagan Airport in DC, and I was desperately late. (My flight home had been canceled. I had to leave security to collect my checked luggage, recheck it and rebook on another flight on another airline. Second airline agent checked my bag but didn’t give me a boarding pass which I didn’t realize until I handed that document to the security agent! Of course, I also forgot that I had purchased a bottle of water while waiting for the original canceled flight, and they found that at security.) I was searched by a gloved same gender TSA agent had me stand feet apart (on a mat with footprints), patted up and down my legs (very lightly and not coming near my crotch or buttocks). She patted my back and between and under my breasts with the back side of her gloved hand. At the time, I was so desperate to catch my flight that I probably would have stripped right there at the checkpoint if they had asked. And it was not invasive as some of these examples have been.</p>
<p>Real terrorists will work around the procedures, and are probably gloating about all this. I can think of a dozen or more ways that someone could circumvent these procedures. I vote for the Israeli procedures. Good old fashioned coordinated intelligence, observing and interviewing passengers, and the machines that already exist (xraying baggage, testing for explosives, dogs, etc.) should be sufficient. Likening TSA intrusive searches to a doctor is not true. It’s actually more like letting your garbage collector pat you down to see if you didn’t forget to throw something in the trash.</p>
<p>Frankly, if I ever have to undergo an enhanced search, I am old enough to ask that it be done in front of everyone, so that others can see what can happen. I want multiple witnesses, not just one. Then I will file a complaint.</p>
<p>From one blogger–hope he or she doesn’t mind, on why we should complain loudly to TSA agents during gropings/x-rayted screenings:</p>
<p>"There is no excuse for TSA officials to do what they are doing. Following orders is no excuse.</p>
<p>There are very few groups of people who can stop the juggernaut of Big Government when it starts steamrolling over the rights of people. In this case, TSA agents are a group that could halt this practice almost instantly, if they wanted. They all told Frischling they opposed the policy. If just a substantial minority of agents went on strike, or resigned, the TSA would be forced to reconsider." </p>
<p>and</p>
<p>"Without willing TSA agents manning the stations at the airport these policies are dead on arrival. I cannot think of another group that could so quickly end the policy of “enhanced pat down” than TSA agents. If 25% of them called in sick in protest Napolitano would be seriously considering her options. No doubt she would fight like hell to save face and keep the policy, but she can’t do it without the TSA frontline agents cooperating.</p>
<p>So, when these agents say they can’t be blamed for the policy, the reality is just the opposite. They and they alone are the reason this policy exists."</p>
<p>Good points. Interesting way of looking at it.</p>
<p>'They and they alone are the reason this policy exists."</p>
<p>I don’t agree with that at all. Our President could get rid of the policy, as well as Napolitano. So could Congress. So could all of us if we boycott flying.
So while the TSA could probably bring the policy to a halt, they are not alone in letting it continue; not at all.</p>
<p>Right… an employee making what, maybe 10 bucks an hour (i have no clue what they make) is the sole reason a governmental policy exists. Guess what blogger, if 25 percent of them called out sick, you’d just be waiting in line even longer to go through the pat downs and scanners and probably miss your flight. And the 75 percent of them that are there will be even less happy to be doing what they have to do because they are swamped. Just wow. All I can say is wow. And with that, I am backing out of this thread, haha.</p>