Originally Posted by
jtodd
I suspect because there is not a reasonable alternative. The majority that do have a reasonable alternative have already opted for such and don't even appear at an airport. For those others that have an issue with the atrocious security, but show up, have very little option. Most probably due to time constraints and a variety of other criteria. Trains are more comfortable, but not fast. Driving either requires a rental car(can cost more than a plane ticket) or a personal auto in good enough shape for the trips, but are still much slower.
Then we, as a society, have built our own prison, by the actions of our past. We've voluntarily put ourselves into a situation that mandates the least preferable choice. We can grow, change, and evolve, or we can keep building the walls taller around us.
Originally Posted by
KaiserBen
Your earlier point about quitting one's job is easily addressed. If you sexually harass your secretary, who cares? She can quit, right?
Sorry, can't link the two scenarios.
Originally Posted by
chollie
The younger generation doesn't know anything different. This is life in the US today. You can be stopped virtually anywhere at any time and asked who you are and where you are going - and in some cases, you may have to prove your identity and citizenship - difficult to do without 'papers'. They see/hear about sexting and child molestation. Those who fly are being taught from a young age that this is the norm at the airport: you present papers, sometimes multiple times to multiple people, you present your bags and your person for scrutiny and you have no recourse. The kids are growing up thinking it is normal.
Only by those children who's parents permit or enable this behavior pattern from their kids.
Originally Posted by
jtodd
Agreed! To say travelers have a choice is just a way to deflect from the real issue, and is insulting.
First, you are correct. Some travelers do
not have a choice (
eg: HI). The scope of my thoughts are limited to those that do (
eg: DTW-CHI, NYC-LAX, etc). Second, what
is the real issue, and how do we address this real issue? The issue, imo, appears to be a lack of ownership on the part of the pax regarding their own society, government, etc, and how to produce productive and healthy change.
I can not think of a single
legal reason that someone can be compelled to fly (
unless it's con-air, yet that's not within the scope of the discussion). And if we permit 5 instances to occur, of what we individually perceive to be an illegal activity, and we don't take action on the 1st event, especially if we've been told that this event is voluntary, then we, the pax, have some ownership.
Everyone in this drama has ownership, yet I believe that the pax isn't taking as much ownership as they should be. This by no means is a statement that the TSA has any
less ownership, yet it's time for the pax to take
more ownership. IMO.
