As I said, FWAAA, if you feel the need, this can be appended to the back of some other news story thread on the TSA.

So I gues syou also submit yourself to the rules of the country, since rules are rules? Implied consent, security screening, etc?

Rules is rules, even for those that don't care for them. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Yes, I willingly submit, sir, since I'm not a terrorist and have nothing to hide.

I just don't have to like it. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I'll say it again. Memo to everyone:

Play Nice or we may not have this playground to play on! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif

So, let me get this straight:

Since abortion is legal in the US, we are therefore a pro-choice country. After all, the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. Therefore there should be no protests by anyone who disagrees with the Court's decision. No attempts to overturn this decision. We, as a nation, are happy with the Court's decision! Let no individual say otherwise.

Have I got it right? I'm told that I'm an awful person for not agreeing with implied consent, as it has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Those folks who don't like abortion better straighten themselves out, I suppose, eh?

(For the record, I am extremely pro-choice and a supporter of Planned Parenthood. But I also support the rights of those who do not agree with Roe v. Wade to protest it or try to get it overturned, provided they do so lawfully)

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 01-16-2003).]

Your anti government rant is about along the same lines as McVeigh and besides it wouldn't matter how many passengers got up to stop a terrorist or some other whack job with a good size can of pepper spray or equivalent. You are very naive to think that this could not happen again. I forgot to add th almost 2/3 of us are vets and at least 1/4 served over 20 years.



[This message has been edited by tsadude (edited 01-16-2003).]

Spiff, all those of us who don't agree with youa re saying is that there is a clear path to reform, and it works well. It is civil, respectful, and pretty well organized.

It is based on finding a majority of the jurisdiction involved that agrees with you, organizing them, and electing representatives that will follow your will.

It is not based on name calling or refusing to acknowledge the authority of the government. We have the greatest system in the world. It works.

Until it is changed you have to play by the rules, you don't have to like them, but you have to obey them.

I personally hate a 65 mph speed limit on the Interstates but I know I have to obey them.

The bottom line, the law is the law, and we all have to obey them until we get them changed.

Guy, this is not an attack but a genuine question.

What the heck is your preoccupation with 'will of the majority' and your utter contempt for the 'disaffected minority' as you like put it'. It is almost like some sort of pathology. No, I am serious, every thread, every post it's 'majority, majority, majority'. I mean, have at it's your right but it comes off as kind of odd, at least to me.

Allow me a gentle reminder that the Founding Fathers were explicitly concerned with and provided for the protection of the rights of the minority. As I am sure you are aware, the U.S. is not a Democracy as such. Additionally your idea that your opinions as regards these matters are in the majority is, at this point, nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking on your part. I await the evidence of a clear 'majority'.

Cheers

Edited to add before someone overreacts: "Pathology, An abnormal variation from a sound condition." i.e. in regards to an argument or position in this instance.




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 01-16-2003).]

Well, I think we all agree on that. That's how we've all been doing generally, quite well for some time now, until just recently, it seems to me. No need to get mad.

edited to indicate "just recently."

[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 01-16-2003).]

I enjoy getting to play on Randy Petersen's playground (as do you, I'm assuming). And that's why I reminded everyone of the rules. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I appreciate the sincerity of the question.

I am not particularly obsessed with majority will, except in the context of this discussion. The reason is that a small number of people who do not reflect the will of the majority are frankly misrepresenting the law, the constitution, and anything else that gets in the way of their beliefs. I provide a continuing reminder that this country is ultimately and always ruled by the majority, not some secret society of government henchmen that is perverting public will.

And this may be the source of the chip on my shoulder. Most unregulated conversations are dominated by the people with the most extreme views, because they are the ones with the largest emotional investment in the topic at hand. And I object to people calling themselves patriots, while espousing the view that patriotism means only what they think it means, with no tolerance for dissent. Because they do not believe in central authority at all, they call every central authority that gets in their way propogandistic names. I merely act as a balancing point to that, by reminding one and all, including them, that this country, is, always has been, and always will be ruled by the majority. The founding fathers preserved the rights of the minority through a series of checks and balances that provide for the protection of certain rights, and a legal mechanism to assure that these rights are protected. Every court in this land has affirmed that those rights are not being violated by the secuirty process. If this set of beliefs is pathology, I willingly confirm my "illness."

As to the matter of why I "believe" the current law to be the will of the majority, I can point yu to any number of threads where I discuss this in detail. In summary, there is no uprising against this law that extends past a small number of people. We just elected an entire Congress, and it was a voting issue in exactly zero races. There was not a single recall effort that I am aware of based on the illegality of airport security or the formation of the TSA. In short, at this moment, the overwhelming majority of the public is acting ina way indicating satisfaction.

All of this is a moving needle, and I am vigilant in the protection of civil rights, and if the needle moves too far, I will change who I support and how I support them. I did not favor the engagement of the TSA as a public agency, and would have preferred it to be private with public oversight. I lost. I would prefer that security screening use some form of non-race based composite profiling to determine who is subjected to the most scrutiny, in addition to/supplementing what is now in place. Lost there too. I have a huge belief that the most onerous parts of security will ease as time passes, new procedures are developed, and the threat subsides when we effectively smash Al Queda. Time will tell on that, but already security procedures have changed, usually for the better. Screeners are professional, polite, and confidence inducing. I get kinda angry when people lapse into name calling because it isn't happening fast enough for them.

But at the core, I think the key difference between us is that I think the government is really trying to do the right thing, and has made a monumental effort to do that. Sometimes they fall short, but they are trying. The opposition appears to believe that the government is an unregulated nest of feather bedders and empire builders who have no interest in security, but merely enlarging its own apparatus. I think the size of government bears vigilance, but with the right officials in office, and the will of the public clearly expressed, that this will not come to pass.

Thank you for your question.

[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 01-16-2003).]

Assuming that your number is accurate - the high proportion of veterans wouldn't have anything to do with the Veteran's Preference built into the law, would it? Would these vets have qualified for their TSA jobs in the absence of the preference points added to their score?? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I'm a vet, too. In fact, there are a lot more vets than TSA screeners. Many millions more.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif I know, I know, you're Peggie Noonan's brother, Brian Noonan, right? (That's a joke - you are always so funny because you are so right...)

If we have another war with Iraq, wait and see how quickly the TSA empties. The only harrassment I have seen is passengers who want to spew forth their resentment to a screener who has nothing to do with making the laws or regulations by which they are doing their job. It takes twice as long to screen a disgruntled passenger and it pisses off the people who are waiting behind them. Start a grass roots organization or something to show your displeasure to the lawmakers because when you act up at a checkpoint everyone around thinks your an a$$.

Brian,

You make a lot of sense in your long post above, but I tend to disagree somewhat with the paragraph I quoted. As a former Federal employee at a fairly high level, I believe that the government has dual motivations. Sure they want to do the right thing. Few people in the government would advocate doing harm! But they certainly are empire builders, too. That's generally how you get promoted in the government, unless you have unusual technical proficiency (which is how I did it). That must be part of the explanation for the TSA's astonishing growth -- which does not seem to have a logical end, incidentally. How will we ever know when we have enough "security"?

At the same time, it seems clear to me that most people really do support the current airport-security procedures. You see it every day in news stories. Even the stupidest, most unnecessary terminal evacuation is met with statements such as, "I don't care what they do as long as we're safe," or words to that effect. Of course, most people don't fly as much as we do, so we're more sensitive to this issue than most people are.

Things really are getting better, though, and only the most stubborn among us refuse to acknowledge that. The TSA still has a ways to go, but I commend them for constantly striving to move in the right direction. And I welcome the TSA employees who have shared their experiences with us here on FT.

Bruce

I'm not sure I understand your point here. We all know that the law must (or should be, thank you radar detectors http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif ) obeyed. Does that mean that being upset with laws we don't agree with is wrong? Does that mean we should just accept these laws? I'm not planning a sit-in protest at the checkpoint, but the screener who hassles me without probable cause will know how little I think of this law without "breaking" or disregarding it.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry