View Poll Results: Do you agree or disagree with the action undertaken by MKEbound?
Agree
766
75.92%
Disagree
144
14.27%
Neither agree nor disagree
75
7.43%
Not sure
24
2.38%
Voters: 1009. You may not vote on this poll
I was detained at the TSA checkpoint for about 25 minutes today
#166
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Minnesota
Programs: DL, Starwood, SWA, United. RIP NWA.
Posts: 320
And while you're there, check out "Wonkette Needs YOU To Spread Fear" (from Tuesday):
"A Wonkette operative writes today, “Upon complaining to my local airport screener this a.m. about the absurd security formalities, he volunteers, ‘Wait until you see what they are going to roll out next week.’”
Sadly, no details were provided. Please ask your friendly TSA screeners about “next week’s new regulations” and send us any & all responses.
...et cetera, et cetera. Looks like there's some kindred spirits at Wonkette. Here's a link to the complete item:
http://www.wonkette.com/politics/fea...ear-203403.php
"A Wonkette operative writes today, “Upon complaining to my local airport screener this a.m. about the absurd security formalities, he volunteers, ‘Wait until you see what they are going to roll out next week.’”
Sadly, no details were provided. Please ask your friendly TSA screeners about “next week’s new regulations” and send us any & all responses.
...et cetera, et cetera. Looks like there's some kindred spirits at Wonkette. Here's a link to the complete item:
http://www.wonkette.com/politics/fea...ear-203403.php
#167
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: DFW
Programs: AA EXP/4MM, QF PLT, Marriott PLT
Posts: 1,425
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Now that we're to get back on topic, what other kind of things printed on a plastic baggie at MKE will cause me momentary entertainment?
#168
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by bollar
I think writing "toiletries" in Arabic would be amusing.
#169
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by thebigfish
Did the OP do it to get a reaction? Yes
Did he have a constitutional right to? Positively Yes.
Did the TSA over-react? Absolutely.
The OP needs to contact the media and the ACLU. Why? You did it to get a reaction - to make a point - you have a obligation to carry it through.
One idea: Pick a day and have thousands of flyers go thru security with the same Kip message. I think TSA would get the message...they're slow..so repition is important.
Did he have a constitutional right to? Positively Yes.
Did the TSA over-react? Absolutely.
The OP needs to contact the media and the ACLU. Why? You did it to get a reaction - to make a point - you have a obligation to carry it through.
One idea: Pick a day and have thousands of flyers go thru security with the same Kip message. I think TSA would get the message...they're slow..so repition is important.
#170
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: BKK, MKE
Programs: DL DM,Marriott Plat
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by thebigfish
One idea: Pick a day and have thousands of flyers go thru security with the same Kip message. I think TSA would get the message...they're slow..so repition is important.
#171
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: Count Your Blessings
Posts: 1,548
What if on one side of the bag your wrote "Kip Hawley is a nincompoop" and on the other side of the same bag you wrote "Kip Hawley is a great guy," would the TSA-Hole go insane with the paradox?
#172
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NYC
Programs: AA ExecPlat; AF Gold; UA GS; Hyatt L. Globalist; Marriott Plat; Hilton Diamond; National EE
Posts: 6,167
Originally Posted by dw8146
I like that. A "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" protest day. A better message to write on our regulation baggies, confiscated water bottles and x-rayed shoes would be "Horrendous Waste Of Time and $'s". ^
#174
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ R.I.P. Super Plats
Posts: 25,415
Originally Posted by Spiff
I'll let my fellow FTers have some fun with other translations.
Besides, the English says it pretty well: Kip Hawley is an idiot.
Last edited by MikeMpls; Sep 27, 2006 at 7:39 am
#175
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: CO PLT, HH DIA
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Bart
This thread is beginning to remind me of a bunch of kids playing "pretend." However, this thread has prompted me to brief my team to remain professional. I periodically remind my team to deal with the frustrations that passengers sometimes take out on us. Goes something like this:
"You aren't being paid to get insulted. So don't get insulted. Many people are frustrated at these security measures and may take it out on you. Stay professional and don't let it get to you. Usually, all they want to do is just spout off. If you don't give in, this will usually defuse the situation and all is forgotten. However, if they remain irrate or even get abusive, I still want you to remain calm and professional. You are not paid to deal with jerks. I am. Call me, and I'll deal with it."
"You aren't being paid to get insulted. So don't get insulted. Many people are frustrated at these security measures and may take it out on you. Stay professional and don't let it get to you. Usually, all they want to do is just spout off. If you don't give in, this will usually defuse the situation and all is forgotten. However, if they remain irrate or even get abusive, I still want you to remain calm and professional. You are not paid to deal with jerks. I am. Call me, and I'll deal with it."
Then again, you're a professional in an organization with very few of these. Keep on keeping on, perhaps this will filter down to other TSA employees by osmosis.
--PP
#176
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gulf Coast/Ventura County/Somewhere in between
Programs: DL GM, Marriott PP, Avis Something or other
Posts: 4,431
An awfully long thread for a childish prank. Maybe the OP can go TP Chertoff's house for his next topic. And if any of you think this forum can create some kind of wave of civil disobedience you need to run for Congress because you already have the self-importance gene in place.
#177
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: CO PLT, HH DIA
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Superguy
I think there would be more accountability as the TSA agent was acting in his official duties as an agent of the government. If a pax had said that, sure, that'd be protected.
The government is made up of people and is not an unassailable machine.
The government is made up of people and is not an unassailable machine.
--PP
#178
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Different Message?
Maybe we should just suggest some different messages to place on baggies. Hopefully one of you is much funnier than I am.
"TSA Stupidity Container"
"SSSSS"
"Caution: Contents are SSI"
"TSA Stupidity Container"
"SSSSS"
"Caution: Contents are SSI"
#179
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by themicah
Both the TSA guy and the deputy technically are right: there are limits to your First Amendment rights. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and speech that could be interpreted as a threat (or "fighting words") can be restricted.
I present a snippet of the great Murray Rothbard. For the full text, visit http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fifteen.asp
LIBERALS GENERALLY WISH TO preserve the concept of “rights” for such “human” rights as freedom of speech, while denying the concept to private property. And yet, on the contrary the concept of “rights” only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard.
In the first place, there are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person’s right to his own body, his personal liberty,, is a property right in his own person as well as a “human right.” But more importantly for our discussion, human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights on behalf of “public policy” or the “public good.” As I wrote in another work:
Take, for example, the “human right” of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate “right to free speech”; there is only a man’s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.
Furthermore, couching the analysis in terns of a “right to free speech” instead of property rights leads to confusion and the weakening of the very concept of rights. The most famous example is Justice Holmes’s contention that no one has the right to shout “Fire” falsely in a crowded theater, and therefore that the right to freedom of speech cannot be absolute, but must be weakened and tempered by considerations of “public policy.” And yet, if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we will see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.
For, logically, the shouter is either a patron or the theater owner. If he is the theater owner, he is violating the property rights of the patrons in quiet enjoyment of the performance, for which he took their money in the first place. If he is another patron, then he is violating both the property right of the patrons to watching the performance and the property right of the owner, for he is violating the terms of his being there. For those terms surely include not violating the owner’s property by disrupting the performance he is putting on. In either case, he may be prosecuted as a violator of property rights; therefore, when we concentrate on the property rights involved, we see that the Holmes case implies no need for the law to weaken the absolute nature of rights.
Indeed, Justice Hugo Black, a well-known “absolutist” on behalf of “freedom of speech,” made it clear, in a trenchant critique of the Holmes “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” argument, that Black’s advocacy of freedom of speech was grounded in the rights of private property. Thus Black stated:
I went to a theater last night with you. I have an idea if you and I had gotten up and marched around that theater, whether we said anything or not, we would have been arrested. Nobody has ever said that the First Amendment gives people a right to go anywhere in the world they want to go or say anything in the world they want to say. Buying the theater tickets did not buy the opportunity to make a speech there. We have a system of property in this country which is also protected by the Constitution. We have a system of property-, which means that a man does not have a right to do anything he wants anywhere he wants to do it. For instance, I would feel a little badly if somebody were to try to come into my house and tell me that he had a constitutional right to come in there because he wanted to make a speech against the Supreme Court. I realize the freedom of people to make a speech against the Supreme Court, but I do not want him to make it in my house.
That is a wonderful aphorism about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. But you do not have to shout “fire” to get arrested. If a person creates a disorder in a theater, they would get him there not because of what he hollered but because he hollered. They would get him not because of any views he had but because they thought he did not have any views that they wanted to hear there. That is the way I would answer not because of what he shouted but because he shouted.
That is a wonderful aphorism about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. But you do not have to shout “fire” to get arrested. If a person creates a disorder in a theater, they would get him there not because of what he hollered but because he hollered. They would get him not because of any views he had but because they thought he did not have any views that they wanted to hear there. That is the way I would answer not because of what he shouted but because he shouted.
#180
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Sunshine State
Programs: Deltaworst Peon Level, TSA "Layer 21 Club", NW WP RIP
Posts: 11,370
musings
quote o the day so far: You KNOW these fools are out at the nighclubs callingthemselves "Federal Security officers" or something like that to impress chicks. Why? "Full time shoe sniffer" doesn't have that ring that's likely to get you laid. ^ LOL
If you wrote "Kip Hawley is not an idiot" could they arrest you for telling a lie?
LEO says they need your address to "fill out the form". When they harass a homeless person, what do they write in their form for address? "Soon to be the county jail if this dude does not shape up"? "T.G.O" as short for The Great Outdoors? If you must have an address to be arrested, are homeless people safer than suburbanites?
Long ago I thought about taking a lead film shield bag and cutting out messages visible on the xray. Like a smile face. Or letters to spell out "All safe here, how about screening some of that unscreened CARGO going 1 foot under my feet on the plane?"
For the OP: The Big Brass Ones Non Sheeple award of the week. That some refuse to let W and the TSA suspend the Constitution give me hope this mess might someday be straightened out.
Would the screener get upset if the ziploc said "I want to love Kip Hawley like he loves me"? And contained a condom and your For Medicinal Purposes 3 oz tube of KY?
If you wrote "Kip Hawley is not an idiot" could they arrest you for telling a lie?
LEO says they need your address to "fill out the form". When they harass a homeless person, what do they write in their form for address? "Soon to be the county jail if this dude does not shape up"? "T.G.O" as short for The Great Outdoors? If you must have an address to be arrested, are homeless people safer than suburbanites?
Long ago I thought about taking a lead film shield bag and cutting out messages visible on the xray. Like a smile face. Or letters to spell out "All safe here, how about screening some of that unscreened CARGO going 1 foot under my feet on the plane?"
For the OP: The Big Brass Ones Non Sheeple award of the week. That some refuse to let W and the TSA suspend the Constitution give me hope this mess might someday be straightened out.
Would the screener get upset if the ziploc said "I want to love Kip Hawley like he loves me"? And contained a condom and your For Medicinal Purposes 3 oz tube of KY?