It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's TSA pat-downs joke infuriates ACLU

page: 8
30
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I apologize for interrupting the debate about constitutional rights and so forth going on in this thread, but wasn't the OP about some stupid joke about pat-downs that Obama made during the SOTU address? Perhaps there needs to be a new thread started where constitutional rights can be debated without hijacking a thread about a stupid joke.


Back on topic...

I personally do not like Obama nor do I like his continuation and expansion of the assaults on our freedoms that Bush began, but...this was just a lame attempt at a stupid joke. I don't believe he was thumbing his nose at those of us who are getting groped and watching our children get groped. I don't believe he had some sinister meaning behind his dumb joke. He was simply a mortal human being making a dumb joke and was likely unaware that he seemed to offend so many thin skinned people.

Geez, what a pathetic country of sniveling, whiny b!tche$ we have become. It was a stupid joke people - pull up your diapers and get over it.

I can't believe I have now come to Obama's defense a couple of times now on this website and I don't even like or respect the guy.




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tallcool1
 



Originally posted by tallcool1
...this was just a lame attempt at a stupid joke.

...

I don't believe he was thumbing his nose at those of us who are getting groped and watching our children get groped.


Perhaps, but I think many saw it as yet another example how unsympathetic and removed he appears to be about those things many Americans find important.

It wasn't funny. It was depressing.


Originally posted by tallcool1
I don't believe he had some sinister meaning behind his dumb joke. He was simply a mortal human being making a dumb joke and was likely unaware that he seemed to offend so many thin skinned people.


That is precisely the point.

When you are the president of the most powerful nation on earth, giving the one speech in the year where everyone will dissect it from Washington to Beijing, don't you think he ought to be held to a slightly higher standard than someone standing around the water cooler at work making an off colored remark?



Originally posted by tallcool1
Geez, what a pathetic country of sniveling, whiny b!tche$ we have become. It was a stupid joke people - pull up your diapers and get over it.


I think it's disturbing you expect so little from those in office expected to represent you.



Originally posted by tallcool1
I can't believe I have now come to Obama's defense a couple of times now on this website and I don't even like or respect the guy.


Maybe you should reassess your views then.

edit on 27-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
maybe if he had his nuts fondled by a tsa agent every time he boarded airforce one he wouldn't be so quick to crack jokes.
edit on 27-1-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I for one didn't care for the "humor" within the SOTUS, but it is what it is....

1. The speech writers came up with it. They could have avoided writing it.

2. The advisors signed off on it. Somebody would have advised against it... citing it distasteful. (I'd like to think somebody did.)

3. The POTUS delivered it. He could have avoided delivering it.

Bits and pieces of the speech were leaked out prior to the SOTUS. Its obvious, the whole administration had a lack of seriousness to the process. The TSA pat down comment struck me as a jab to the ribs comment. One of those.... "deal with it... cuz" statements.

There's enough blame to go around. What surprised me was that no one came forth from within the administration and claimed it to be inappropriate or distasteful. IMHO that reflects poor advice from the advisors. Its a sad day when its obvious that the viewing audience is more mature than the leadership it has elected.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I personally don't see the big deal. I see it being made into a big deal.

As always I try to simplify things.

50 years ago - - did anyone hear of metal detectors at public schools? I didn't.

It is a different world today - - whether anyone wants to accept that or not.

I don't see what the big deal is about scanners. I don't agree with pat downs - - but if you refuse a body scan - - what other alternative is there?

We are not gonna go backwards.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 
you do know what the a social contract is right. it is the "The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law"(wikipedia). Since you like laws so much I though you might want to know



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by poe8130
 



Originally posted by poe8130
you do know what the a social contract is right.


Indeed, I do.

But your introduction of the concept into this thread makes me think you have no idea how it applies to our Constitution.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Originally posted by Annee
I don't agree with pat downs - - but if you refuse a body scan - - what other alternative is there?

We are not gonna go backwards.


Many have mentioned other viable alternatives....dogs...the Israeli approach...etc...

There are actually many alternatives, including doing little more than what we did prior to 9/11.


Yes, sometimes you have to accept the government can't fix all problems without exchanging them for something worse.

Incidentally, I fly fairly frequently and I have yet to be required to do the back-scatter x-ray or the pat down. Frankly, I don't ever want to do either one, but if I have to, I'll take the physical humiliation over the potential for damaging radiation.


When you realize the potential disaster that can take place with improperly calibrated machines, you'd have to be nuts to stand in one. :shk:
edit on 27-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Annee
 


There are actually many alternatives, including doing little more than what we did prior to 9/11.



On that note... here's to remembering September 10th, 2001 and what life was like then. *clinking of glasses being cheered in a toast*

May we always have the nerve to teach our kids what freedom was like back then!



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
There are actually many alternatives, including doing little more than what we did prior to 9/11.


OK - list them.


When you realize the potential disaster that can take place with improperly calibrated machines, you'd have to be nuts to stand in one.


Like what?

Back up your claim.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BL4CKST4R
May we always have the nerve to teach our kids what freedom was like back then!


Being 64 - - I remember lots of freedoms. Like kids being able to run free and play - - and who's ever house you were at - - they disciplined you if you got out of line. Every house was your "parent".

My mom worked for a major airline. We even got to go into the cockpit a couple times.

However - - there were lots of freedoms we did not have either - - like girls playing sports - - equal rights - - equal housing - - access to your school and medical records.

I personally would not want to go back to that time - - and lose the new freedoms we've earned.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I guess I'm the only one who can do research.


Here, after 30 seconds of searching:




Scientists Question Safety Of New Airport Scanners

"Many people will approach this as, 'Oh, it must be safe, the government has thought about this and I'll just submit to it,'" says David Agard, a biochemist and biophysicist at the University of California, San Francisco. "But there really is no threshold of low dose being OK. Any dose of X-rays produces some potential risk."

Agard and several of his UCSF colleagues recently wrote a letter to John Holdren the president's science adviser, asking for a more thorough look at the risks of exposing all those airline passengers to X-rays. The other signers are John Sedat, a molecular biologist and the group's leader; Marc Shuman, a cancer specialist; and Robert Stroud, a biochemist and biophysicist.

"Ionizing radiation such as the X-rays used in these scanners have the potential to induce chromosome damage, and that can lead to cancer," Agard says.

The San Francisco group thinks both the machine's manufacturer, Rapiscan, and government officials have miscalculated the dose that the X-ray scanners deliver to the skin — where nearly all the radiation is concentrated.

The stated dose — about .02 microsieverts, a medical unit of radiation — is averaged over the whole body, members of the UCSF group said in interviews. But they maintain that if the dose is calculated as what gets deposited in the skin, the number would be higher, though how much higher is unclear.



This particular article continues:




Recent research, Brenner says, indicates that about 5 percent of the population — one person in 20 — is especially sensitive to radiation. These people have gene mutations that make them less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA. Two examples are the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutations associated with breast and ovarian cancer, but scientists believe many more such defects are unknown.

"I don't know if I'm one of those 5 percent. I don't know if you're one of those 5 percent," Brenner says, "And we don't really have a quick and easy test to find those individuals."

Children are also more vulnerable to radiation damage, because they have more dividing cells at any time. A radiation-induced mutation in their cells can lead to cancer decades later.



See also:

Radiation risks: Are airport body x-ray scanners ‘a great public health experiment’?




If they are wrong about penetration and privacy, can they be wrong about dose?



And:

Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit



One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin — such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.

This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being “1,000-times less than a chest X-ray” and “far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight” are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.

We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).



And:

Security scanner blamed for woman's death

And:

Are Full-Body Airport Scanners Safe?




...the lack of independent safety data...

...the main concern is whether these new scanners increase an individual's risk of developing cancer.

Unfortunately, the answer to that question depends on who is being asked. Both the TSA and the FDA say that the technology is unequivocally safe for all passengers and that the radiation dose is too low to cause any health risk. Some professional organizations, such as the American College of Radiology, agree with that summation. Other medical groups, such as the American Academy of Dermatologists, have not yet issued a position on the subject, despite concerns that there might be an elevated risk for skin cancer.



Don't bother parsing the material. If you want to take the risk of frying your DNA, be my guest.

Call me any name in the book you want, I don't care.

I wont exchange my health for FAKE security.

Backscatter X-Ray Machines Easily Fooled


edit on 28-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Annee
 


I guess I'm the only one who can do research.


Here, after 30 seconds of searching:


Enough with the drama . . . .

Scientist research the affects of natural Sun Rays too.

People today probably have enough electrical equipment in their own homes affecting the body - - - as much or more then - - - what affects a body scanner is going to have - - - for the amount of time one is exposed.

I don't see a problem.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Ahhhhhh - - - the Internet. You can always find reports that agree with your position/point of view.

As far as worries of malfunction - - - your brakes could go out on your car - - - you could slip an fall walking down the street - - - etc etc etc.

Personally - - I am going to live my life to the fullest every day - - and not worry about the "possibility" of a malfunction. We live in a world of technology - - and it is not going to go away - - that's just the way it is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Airport Full-Body Scanners Safe, Government Says

By AP Nov 19th 2010 11:55AM

They look a little like giant refrigerators and pack a radiation dose big enough to peer through clothing for bombs or weapons, yet too minuscule to be harmful, federal officials insist. As the government rolls out hundreds more full-body scanners at airports just in time for crowds of holiday travelers, it is working to reassure the public that the machines are safe.

An independent group of experts agrees, as long as radiation doses are kept within the low limits set for the scanners. Still, a few scientists worry that machines might malfunction, raising the risk of cancer.

The Transportation Security Administration says radiation from one scan is about the same as a person would get from flying for about three minutes in an airplane at 30,000 feet, where atmospheric radiation levels are higher than on the ground. That amount is vastly lower than a single dental X-ray.

You would have to go through scanners more than 1,000 times in one year to even meet the maximum recommended level -- and even pilots don't do that.

"We are confident that full-body X-ray security products and practices do not pose a significant risk to the public health," officials from the Food and Drug Administration and the TSA wrote in a letter last month to White House science adviser John Holdren.

www.aolhealth.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by tallcool1
 



Originally posted by tallcool1
...this was just a lame attempt at a stupid joke.

...

I don't believe he was thumbing his nose at those of us who are getting groped and watching our children get groped.


Perhaps, but I think many saw it as yet another example how unsympathetic and removed he appears to be about those things many Americans find important.

It wasn't funny. It was depressing.


Originally posted by tallcool1
I don't believe he had some sinister meaning behind his dumb joke. He was simply a mortal human being making a dumb joke and was likely unaware that he seemed to offend so many thin skinned people.


That is precisely the point.

When you are the president of the most powerful nation on earth, giving the one speech in the year where everyone will dissect it from Washington to Beijing, don't you think he ought to be held to a slightly higher standard than someone standing around the water cooler at work making an off colored remark?



Originally posted by tallcool1
Geez, what a pathetic country of sniveling, whiny b!tche$ we have become. It was a stupid joke people - pull up your diapers and get over it.


I think it's disturbing you expect so little from those in office expected to represent you.



Originally posted by tallcool1
I can't believe I have now come to Obama's defense a couple of times now on this website and I don't even like or respect the guy.


Maybe you should reassess your views then.

edit on 27-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)


Loam - I really do understand what you are saying and I am actually in agreement with you. I used to expect more from the office of the President of the United States, but I also begrudgingly accept that the American people had their say in the last election and, unfortunately, Americans want someone in office who looks nice and speaks well instead of someone with actual leadership experience. The office of the President has become the ultimate American Idol contest. I personally hate that, but it is what it is. All I can do is hope that with the Bush presidency and especially with the Obama presidency that America will wake the "f" back up and elect someone who will dismantle the government as it is and give us back our freedoms while still protecting our borders.

Regardless, it was still just a very stupid joke and I stand by my belief that a majority of Americans have become overly sensitive and need to quit being crybabies. Even if we elect a President that the whole world loves, he or she will still be a faulty human and will make blunders from time to time.

Edited to add: I am in no way saying that McCain/Palin would have been the answer. We had no "real" choice in the last election and those of us who wrote in Ron Paul were largely ignored, so we really did just vote in a seemingly "swell guy" instead of a leader.
edit on 28-1-2011 by tallcool1 because: hopefully to make my point more clear. (?)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tallcool1
I used to expect more from the office of the President of the United States, but I also begrudgingly accept that the American people had their say in the last election and, unfortunately, Americans want someone in office who looks nice and speaks well instead of someone with actual leadership experience. The office of the President has become the ultimate American Idol contest.


The presidency is NOT one person. Yes the President is a Figure Head. And Thank God this one can speak eloquently and is nice to look at.

He is also extremely intelligent - - which I am really quite impressed with: He got his law degree from Harvard Law School (where he became the Harvard Law Review's first African American president), graduating magna cum laude. Obama was also a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Originally posted by Annee
I don't see a problem.


As I've already indicated....walk on.

As long as it's voluntary, I'll take the official genital molestation procedure.

If it becomes mandatory, then I'll probably stop flying.

To each his own.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




I couldn't help myself...

Let me help you with your added emphasis...


Originally posted by Annee


An independent group of experts agrees, as long as radiation doses are kept within the low limits set for the scanners. Still, a few scientists worry that machines might malfunction, raising the risk of cancer.



And the kicker is that you would have no way of ever really knowing that you got cooked.

Yeah, rock on, Annee!

edit on 28-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by tallcool1
 


For the most part, I agree with you as well.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Further to the point of poorly calibrated or malfunctioning machines, let's look to the past, shall we?




TSA workers, experts worry about radiation exposure

When investigators with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's workplace safety team visited a dozen airports in 2003 and 2004, what they found was disturbing — at least to federal airport workers.

Although most radiation levels around baggage X-ray machines were low, six of 281 machines used to screen checked luggage violated federal radiation standards, some emitting two or three times the allowed limit, the CDC found.

Perhaps most troubling, the CDC had found what the Transportation Security Administration hadn't noticed. The TSA and its contractors had failed to identify the machines that were emitting excessive radiation — a failure that continues to leave TSA workers and some lawmakers uneasy, especially as the agency continues to deploy hundreds of controversial radiation-emitting machines to help screen passengers.




And what happens when they do know???




Lawmakers call on TSA to release X-ray inspection records

Members of Congress are calling on the Transportation Security Administration to release inspection reports that would show whether airport X-ray machines that screen passengers and bags are regularly meeting requirements to emit only low levels of radiation.

The calls by lawmakers came after the TSA didn't respond to USA TODAY's repeated requests since Nov. 26 to review equipment records that would show whether the X-ray machines are properly monitored and maintained. In the past, the agency has failed to identify problems with its X-ray machines, records show, and the USA TODAY request came in the wake of concerns by travelers and some experts about possible health risks if new full-body scanners malfunction.



Yeah, that gives me the warm and fuzzies....


Like I said, if you are willing to play Russian Roulette with your own health to support the pointless Security Theater Game, knock yourself out.



edit on 28-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join