loops

Not necessarily. This is a quote from one I know with a need to travel who is willing to put up with it and sees no alternative. I may not personally agree with all she says, but I fully respect her right to say as she sees. She was recently patted down for the first time on a recent trip. I did not ask the details.

This is someone who is very well read and totally understands implications. Unlikely to be civilly disobedient. I get what she's saying though...

chollie

I understand what she's saying, too, and I know people who feel the same.

We all have to pick our own battles and draw our own lines in the sand. This isn't an important battle to her and apparently, at least based on her one and only experience, she can 'deal' with it.

jkhuggins

I agree with the numerous comments above about being cautious about "reasoning" with such advocates; if they're not interested in listening, there's not much point in having the discussion.

Having said that, if someone is willing to have a discussion, this would be a perfect time to apply reductio ad absurdum. Ask if "anything for security" should involve having all passengers fly buck naked, or chained to their seats like Con Air. Almost certainly they'd agree that such restrictions would be unreasonable ... which opens the conversation up to a discussion regarding what restrictions might and might not be reasonable.

Rondall

In my case it took time and experience. In 2006 on our way home from HI, I was selected for the then new enhanced screening at HNL. Patdown did not involve any groping. My wife about came unglued on the guy, I was the patient one reasoning that it was necessary for safety. We get home and discover the loose change we had from a weeks worth of shopping, eating, etc. in paradise, that we had dumped into a checked bag, went missing. Filed complaint, no response. First time going through an airport with PoS (porn-o-scope) didn't even realize what they were till after submitting. Still makes me feel like vomiting. Lesson learned, now a convert. Especially since my wife and I will be travelling with a minor female extended family member in the near future. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. I have reached it.

My point is, I believe some AFS people can be reasoned with, but nothing changes hearts and minds like first hand experience.

Ari

My dog understands quantum physics just fine-- we egage on the topic during each walk through use of the extend-o-leash.

Saitek

I have found most of those who are 'anything for security' types, fall into one of these categories:

Obama supporter (hate to make this political but, in their mind he is a god)
Work for the govt in some way
Avid watchers of Fox News, and are unaware, that fox news was actually busted for making up news...
Generally live under a rock
A believe whole heartedly, that the US Govt would NEVER put americans in harms way... Even though there is documented evidence of such govt injecting plutonium into hospital patients in the 1940's and 50's
And people who believe, that 19 cave dwellers, were able to single handily, by pass the security, of a nation with the most technologically advanced military, the world has ever seen, in the history of man kind.

Global_Hi_Flyer

You cannot reason with them any more than you can reason with a far-right-wing or far-left-wing person over taxes & politics. Or reason with a Joseph McCarthy supporter over a communist witch-hunt.

Pesky Monkey

You forgot those who think that Saddam Hussein and the other Iraqis had it coming for what they did on 9/11.

usafwso

It is like the co hosts of THE VIEW, all five of them are "Everything For Safety". But again, these women probably do most of their flying either via corporate jets or on VIP status with commercial airlines, therefore, they are not subject to the same harassment as the rest of us.

I doubt that the TSA will ever feel up Barbara Walters for any reason. If they did, ABC would make a quick telephone call to the White House to complain, regardless of the occupant R or D.

InkUnderNails

I highly suspect that the intersection of those sets is the null set.

As for me, I think the SFS group is simply a certain number of government employees and those that have not yet gotten all the information.

WillCAD

That one's easy to refute. "But what if it DOESN'T make us safer? What if it's totally, completely useless and does nothing whatsoever to make us safer? Is it still acceptable?"

Fortunately, not all infrequent fliers are quite so dense or blase. I only fly once or twice per year, about 2-4 segments, yet I've been outraged by TSA's behavior and policies for years.

mikemey

I find that a 2x4 works best.

liverpoolfc

(Bolding mine)

Trust me, I have not seen these two groups intersect. I formerly interned at Fox News (yes, I know they make things up) and Fox News is extremely right wing AND makes up stories about Obama on the regular, these people do not watch the same programming and Fox News supporters would be in the ABO camp (Anyone But Obama). Unless you mean Obama supporters and people who watch Fox News as two different categories of people, and these are not all the same requirements for the "anything for security" people.

mahohmei

I've thought (and posted) about this topic extensively, and I happen to personally know way too many AFS people. My typical counter to their AFS hardline is simple:

- The TSA _is not providing security_, including pornoscanners letting guns through.
- The only two things that will effectively stop a 9/11-style attack are hardened cockpit doors and policies to resist hijackers.

Their responses tend to revolve around:

- "They'd never allow full-body scanners into airports if they weren't safe!"
- "It's less radiation than taking a flight!"
- "The person viewing the full-body scanners is in another room, can't see you, and doesn't know who you are!"
- "I don't want to hear anything about it."
- "I don't care what Ben Franklin said."
- "Full-body scanners are coming to ship/bus/rail stations."
- "The TSA is here to stay; you need to deal with it instead of complaining and trying to avoid it."
- "Airport security is even more invasive in other countries!"
- "I got an 'enhanced' pat-down and they were very professional about it, even though I cried the whole way through it. You just have to deal with it if you want to be in the USA in 2011."
- "The USA it the best country on earth."

I've had people practically demand to know why I hate flying. Ummm...because you might be forced to choose between a pornoscan or sexual assault?

Here's another way to reason with an AFS person, if they'll let you finish a sentence without interrupting you:

"The TSA is obviously ineffective at stopping dangerous and/or prohibited items at airport security checkpoints, however, there has not been a single successful hijacking or attack since 9/11. How do you explain this?"

goalie

You don't and you can't as they hath already consumed the Kool-Aid.