Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Have any of you decided not to fly?

  1. #1
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,917

    Have any of you decided not to fly?

    Jesse Ventura is the first big-name celebrity to publicly state that he won't fly commercially until the TSA stops forcing everyone to either be scanned or groped.

    I hope others join with him - it could lead to a groundswell of public resistance to these absurd - and dangerous - exercises in "slave training."

    Meanwhile, I too have decided I will not fly again until sanity (and respect for human liberty) is restored to commercial air travel. If someone gives the authorities a reason for suspecting he might be up to something, then I have no quarrel with that person being questioned, scanned or searched before they're allowed to board. But we've got to find a way to put a stop to this business of subjecting everyone - including even little kids and old people - to these degrading (and potentially dangerous) scans and gropes.

    How about it: Are you willing to stop flying in order to send a message to the government and the airlines that this nonsense has got to stop?

    If not - why not?

  2. #2
    Senior Member DonTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Auburn, CA & Reno, NV & Cold Springs Valley, NV
    Posts
    688
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    How about it: Are you willing to stop flying in order to send a message to the government and the airlines that this nonsense has got to stop? If not - why not?
    I don't think it's a big deal. Travel is a lot of hassles and waiting regardless. I expect such.

    Would you prefer absolutely no airport security at all?

    -Don- SF, CA

  3. #3
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,917
    Quote Originally Posted by DonTom View Post
    I don't think it's a big deal. Travel is a lot of hassles and waiting regardless. I expect such.

    Would you prefer absolutely no airport security at all?

    -Don- SF, CA
    I think being subjected to treatment that's very similar to what happens to just-arrested felony suspects is a pretty big deal.

    And: Isn't there a reasonable middle ground?

    I didn't say I prefer no airport security. That would be as dumb in its own way as what we have now is over-the-top and degrading.

    As I wrote before: I have no issue with going through a metal detector and if any person gives some reason for suspecting he may be less-than-Kosher, then fine, ask him a few questions and if there's still some reason to be concerned, maybe pat him down/ask to look through his stuff.

    But making people who have done absolutely nothing suspicious or given any reason to suspect they might be up to something go through an invasive public patdown by a government thug - or submit to being "scanned" and viewed naked by a government thug - is outrageous.

    The thing is, if we accept this at airports, soon we'll be "accepting" it elsewhere, too. Do you think the government will be content to stop with airports? That the tendency to always increase (and never decrease) laws, rules, power over people, etc. will be different in this case?

    Would you also be ok with randomly being stopped in yuor car or just while out walking the street and interrogated or forced to be scanned or groped?

    They'll say they're "just keeping us safe," of course.

    And just like "freedom" means its opposite in today's society, we'll be no more safe as a result, either.

  4. #4
    Senior Member DonTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Auburn, CA & Reno, NV & Cold Springs Valley, NV
    Posts
    688
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Would you also be ok with randomly being stopped in yuor car or just while out walking the street and interrogated or forced to be scanned or groped?
    No comparison. There is nothing "random" with an airport security search these days. It's a deal we make. Get searched or don't fly. To me, it's just not a big deal to be searched at the airport to get to the gate area. And these days, they often do another search right at your own gate number about a half hour before boarding. I've got nothing better to do anyway, while at the airport waiting to get on the plane to do even more waiting.

    Moderation in airport security has already proved to be a bad idea. That's why they are now doing even more to make it tougher for terrorists.


    -Don-

  5. #5
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,917
    Quote Originally Posted by DonTom View Post
    No comparison. There is nothing "random" with an airport security search these days. It's a deal we make. Get searched or don't fly. To me, it's just not a big deal to be searched at the airport to get to the gate area. And these days, they often do another search right at your own gate number about a half hour before boarding. I've got nothing better to do anyway, while at the airport waiting to get on the plane to do even more waiting.

    Moderation in airport security has already proved to be a bad idea. That's why they are now doing even more to make it tougher for terrorists.


    -Don-
    But, once we accept the principle that it's ok to subject everyone - for no real reason - to aggressive, degrading searches in order to board an airplane, the same principle will be deployed to impose similar totalitarian-style treatment in other venues.

    This has been the pattern every single time.

    Moreover, as a purely practical matter, these searches aren't going to stop people determined to commit terrorism anymore than gun control stops criminals from shooting people. All we're doing is turning the country into a police state - which means, the terrorists have won. Right?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Jesse Ventura is the first big-name celebrity to publicly state that he won't fly commercially until the TSA stops forcing everyone to either be scanned or groped.

    I hope others join with him - it could lead to a groundswell of public resistance to these absurd - and dangerous - exercises in "slave training."

    Meanwhile, I too have decided I will not fly again until sanity (and respect for human liberty) is restored to commercial air travel. If someone gives the authorities a reason for suspecting he might be up to something, then I have no quarrel with that person being questioned, scanned or searched before they're allowed to board. But we've got to find a way to put a stop to this business of subjecting everyone - including even little kids and old people - to these degrading (and potentially dangerous) scans and gropes.

    How about it: Are you willing to stop flying in order to send a message to the government and the airlines that this nonsense has got to stop?

    If not - why not?

    Hell, I never flew but once or twice a year anyways. I am definitely not going to now, TSA can kiss my ass.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by dieseleverything View Post
    Hell, I never flew but once or twice a year anyways. I am definitely not going to now, TSA can kiss my ass.
    Oh, come on dude - you're just tryin' to get them all excited!

    OTOH, thinking about it, if every single traveller insisted on the 'opt out' pat down the air travel industry would grind to a halt in a matter of days - if not hours - there is always more than one way of killing a cat.

    Ken.
    Last edited by Ken; 01-26-2011 at 01:29 PM. Reason: Added text.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  8. #8
    Ridin Dirty dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Front Royal, VA
    Posts
    1,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    Oh, come on dude - you're just tryin' to get them all excited!
    Too funny!

    "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato "
    -Mussolini
    All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,073
    I'll fly if necessary - cutting off my nose to spite my face has never appealed to me!

  10. #10
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Brand View Post
    I'll fly if necessary - cutting off my nose to spite my face has never appealed to me!
    Nor to me.

    But, sometimes, it is important (even necessary) to take a stand.

    What's going on is outrageous - and if it's not challenged and beaten back, it will spread. The precedent will have been established and the public conditioned to accept a state of affairs that is not at all unlike what life was like in East Germany or even Soviet Russia. Essentially unlimited police/government authority; total/abject public obedience.

    Is that what we want? Is "security" (real or imagined) worth surrendering the very things that made America (and the West) qualitatively different from the thug states of history?

  11. #11
    Senior Member Mithrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Nor to me.

    But, sometimes, it is important (even necessary) to take a stand.

    What's going on is outrageous - and if it's not challenged and beaten back, it will spread. The precedent will have been established and the public conditioned to accept a state of affairs that is not at all unlike what life was like in East Germany or even Soviet Russia. Essentially unlimited police/government authority; total/abject public obedience.

    Is that what we want? Is "security" (real or imagined) worth surrendering the very things that made America (and the West) qualitatively different from the thug states of history?

    Paraphrase: Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither. - B. Franklin

    Except for flights to Europe, I wont fly.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony

    'Many are my names in many countries,' he said. 'Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkûn to the Drarves; Olórin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the South Incánus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not.' Faramir

    What nobler employment, or more valuable to the state, than that of the man who instructs the rising generation? Cicero (106BC-43BC)

    Do not meddle in the affairs of Win32, for it is subtle, and quick to anger. -D. Martinez

  12. #12
    Senior Member DonTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Auburn, CA & Reno, NV & Cold Springs Valley, NV
    Posts
    688
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    All we're doing is turning the country into a police state - which means, the terrorists have won. Right?
    The problem is that they would like to win more, by being able to blow up a few more planes. And you wanna make it easy for them.

    You seem to think this security stuff is just to harass us for no reason.

    -Don-

  13. #13
    Senior Member Mithrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    256

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by DonTom View Post
    The problem is that they would like to win more, by being able to blow up a few more planes. And you wanna make it easy for them.

    You seem to think this security stuff is just to harass us for no reason.

    -Don-
    Security does have its place. Freedom and liberty also have their place.

    Treating everyone to radiation scans and/or invasive groping are not acceptable security practices to me.

    I my opinion, there has to exist a better way of securing planes and airports without abusing everyone's liberties.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony

    'Many are my names in many countries,' he said. 'Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkûn to the Drarves; Olórin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the South Incánus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not.' Faramir

    What nobler employment, or more valuable to the state, than that of the man who instructs the rising generation? Cicero (106BC-43BC)

    Do not meddle in the affairs of Win32, for it is subtle, and quick to anger. -D. Martinez

  14. #14
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,917
    Quote Originally Posted by DonTom View Post
    The problem is that they would like to win more, by being able to blow up a few more planes. And you wanna make it easy for them.

    You seem to think this security stuff is just to harass us for no reason.

    -Don-
    Frankly, yes.

    A terrorist could simply sit outside the airport perimeter in a van with a shoulder-fired rocket and blast a 747 to kingdom come - or spray the people entering the terminal with automatic weapons fire... the possibilities are endless.

    Are we going to adopt police state tactics to curb every conceivable, potential threat?

    Not even the Israelis - who are the most anal people on the earth when it comes to security - subject their people to this.

    It's out of hand. And it doesn't make us "safe," either.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Mithrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    256

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    Oh, come on dude - you're just tryin' to get them all excited!

    OTOH, thinking about it, if every single traveler insisted on the 'opt out' pat down the air travel industry would grind to a halt in a matter of days - if not hours - there is always more than one way of killing a cat.

    Ken.
    Sounds similar to Gandhi's practice of civil disobedience to help shame the UK gov't to do the right thing with respect to Indian independence.

    Just think of all the groping. Sounds like the plot of a bad B movie, except that the movie is easier to ignore.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony

    'Many are my names in many countries,' he said. 'Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkûn to the Drarves; Olórin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the South Incánus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not.' Faramir

    What nobler employment, or more valuable to the state, than that of the man who instructs the rising generation? Cicero (106BC-43BC)

    Do not meddle in the affairs of Win32, for it is subtle, and quick to anger. -D. Martinez

  16. #16
    Senior Member DonTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Auburn, CA & Reno, NV & Cold Springs Valley, NV
    Posts
    688
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    But, once we accept the principle that it's ok to subject everyone - for no real reason.
    IMO, the "real reason" was well proved on 9-11-01. Too bad such security was not a lot tougher on 9-10-01 or before!

    Moreover, as a purely practical matter, these searches aren't going to stop people determined to commit terrorism anymore than gun control stops criminals from shooting people. All we're doing is turning the country into a police state - which means, the terrorists have won. Right?
    I don't agree. The tougher we make it for everybody, it means a lot more difficult planning is required for terrorists and their likelihood of getting caught increases. The terrorists have only won if we think it's a big deal. IOW, if we all refuse to travel because of it, then the terrorists won. I don't think the airport security is a big deal. Such hassles should be expected when traveling.
    The searches will NOT stop me. But perhaps they will stop some of the terrorists.

    -Don- Reno, NV

  17. #17
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,917
    "IMO, the "real reason" was well proved on 9-11-01. Too bad such security was not a lot tougher on 9-10-01 or before!"

    Well, using that argument, we should toss whatever remains of the Bill of Rights and give the government unlimited authority to do whatever it thinks will "keep us safe," no matter how arbitrary or extreme. By your logic, there is no argument against this. Right? It is as impossible to prevent every conceivable "terrorist" threat (or actual attack) as it is to prevent every conceivable crime. We (up to recent history) accepted the risk of some crime happening in order to enjoy the benefits of an open society. But what you are defending is giving up the open society to chase the uncatchable phantom of "terror." That's a dangerous road to travel; much more so than any threat we face from "them." I'd rather see a city go up in a mushroom cloud than see America become the new Soviet Union.

    "I don't agree. The tougher we make it for everybody, it means a lot more difficult planning is required for terrorists and their likelihood of getting caught increases."

    Seriously? As a purely theoretical exercise in discussion, for purposes of making a point: Any ordinary person could jump in a car, right now - and cause mass casualties at any major airport with virtually no planning and irrespective of "security."A person could rig their car to blow up as he drives up to the curb, crowded with people. He could spray the crowd with gunfire. Or why not do it at a shopping mall? Etc.

    Existing "security" won't stop such things - and that's Joe ordinary - with no terrorist training or backing. Do you really think an actual terrorist, someone backed by an organization with means, is going to be at all troubled by any of this rigmarole? How many "terrorists" have been stopped thus far?

    Not one!

    I know you don't support gun control; yet you support the same concept here. Why? Just as laws forbidding scumbags from carrying guns and shooting people with them have amply proved utterly useless at preventing them from doing so (while making their victims easier to victimize) these "security" measures (security theater) haven't and won't do a thing to prevent real terrorists from doing their thing while doing a great deal to inconvenience, hassle and degrade ordinary Americans.

    Ordinary Americans are increasingly being made to comply with East German Stasi-like treatment, absent any specific reason for suspicion, let alone probable cause.

    Your position not only endorses this - it sets the stage for more. You've also bought into the idea that government is competent - and there to protect us when it's obviously incompetent and at least as interested in expanding its power and control over us as it is in "protecting" us.

    "The terrorists have only won if we think it's a big deal."

    So, only our attitude matters? So long as we think it's "no big deal" to be treated like Soviet peons, forced to endure arbitrary and degrading random searches and so on then it isn't a big deal? Interesting.

    "IOW, if we all refuse to travel because of it, then the terrorists won."

    We (the American public) would win - if we managed to restore some dignity - and sanity - to our laws and procedures. I pointed out earlier that the Israelis manage to operate their airports without subjecting their citizens to the groping and scanning we do. They profile - and only draw a bead on those who give some reason for suspicion. But you didn't respond to this.

    "I don't think the airport security is a big deal. Such hassles should be expected when traveling."

    Will you change your mind when similar "security" is imposed on us when we drive? Or when we go shopping at a mall? Why should such hassles be "expected"? We didn't use to "expect" them and the world didn't end. I'd rather we dealt with the source of the terrorist issue - asshole American foreign policy - than accepted asshole American domestic policies.

    "The searches will NOT stop me. But perhaps they will stop some of the terrorists."

    That sounds like a Bush speech! I hope you won't be saying we're "fighting for freedom" in Iraq next.... !

  18. #18
    Senior Member Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithrandir View Post
    Sounds similar to Gandhi's practice of civil disobedience to help shame the UK gov't to do the right thing with respect to Indian independence.
    History, they say, often repeats itself.

    From personal experience I have found when 'authority' insists that something (which one knows will not work) has to be done 'for the better good', the easiest way to stop it is to obey to the letter in an excessive manner.

    I remember one of my directors complaining that my monthly reports were to detailed and wanting them cut down to about ten percent. I explained that they contained everything I felt he needed to know. The next month I wrote my usual report and then a very carefully written precis which I gave him. At the next Director's monthly meeting he was on the phone to me every ten minutes asking for more information. When he came back I simply gave him a copy of my full report which contained all the data he had been phoning down for - I heard no more complaints. The same thing should apply to the TSA - give them, exactly, one of their open 'search' options and the airlines will soon be insisting that they back off.

    Ken.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  19. #19
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,917
    Don, please read this:

    A GOVERNMENT AGENT ON EVERY CORNER, A WIRETAP ON EVERY PHONE
    by SIMON BLACK

    US General George S. Patton is often credited with saying “No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.” Perhaps Patton was correct. But a lot of poor bastards had a significant impact on security policies by blowing themselves up for their cause.

    Yesterday’s suicide attack at Domodedovo airport in Moscow was another stark reminder that there are people in this world who have (a) extreme commitment to their cause; (b) the will to die for their beliefs; and (c) the twisted moral compass to justify the deaths of others as necessary and legitimate.

    These three ingredients are a dangerous combination, and unfortunately they exist in mass quantities among fanatics who have lost sight of their humanity.

    I don’t want to get into the chicken or egg argument right now about whether such fanaticism would exist without authoritarian, imperialistic arrogance on the part of major world governments… but suffice it to say that, with each attack on civilian targets, governments step up their military/police efforts in the ‘war on terror.’

    It’s interesting how government defense planners always seem to be training their troops to fight the last war. For example, the WW2-style training in the US that lasted for decades which prepared troops to fight against Soviet forces proved largely irrelevant in the jungle warfare environment of Vietnam, or the desert in Kuwait.

    Subsequent jungle warfare and traditional desert warfare training proved largely irrelevant in the 1990s peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, and training for peacekeeping operations proved largely irrelevant for Iraq’s counterinsurgency operations.

    As the military now focuses its training on preparing troops for yesterday’s counterinsurgency operations, I suspect defense planners are largely ignoring tomorrow’s threats, like cyber- and economic warfare.

    Similarly, every time there is an attack on civilian targets, governments come out in force against the threat. When someone tries to explode his shoe, everyone has to take his/her shoes off. When someone tries to explode his underwear, everyone has to go through a body scanner.

    The Russian bombing yesterday proved that these reactive tactics are completely ineffective, akin to training to fight the last war.

    Soft targets are everywhere, and if government agencies make it too difficult to blow up a plane, attackers will blow up the airport. If they can’t blow up an airport, they’ll blow up a bus station… sports stadium… grocery store… you name it.

    Each reactive policy measure only serves to solidify the attackers’ convictions, erode the freedoms of the innocents, and divide the nation into to distinct sides– those who would rather have their freedom and take a chance on safety, and those who are willing to relinquish their freedom in exchange for the illusion of security.

    Politicians will always side with the latter, expanding their domain and redefining ‘security’ so that it encompasses the widest possible range of human activities.

    Going to a ball game? Security. A nightclub? Security. No more financial privacy? It’s for your security. Listening to your phone calls? Also for your security. Protesting against the politicians? You’re a security risk. 90-year old woman in a wheelchair? Frisk her, she’s a security risk. “Attention WalMart shoppers: rat out your neighbor.” – Homeland Security.

    These measures are all readily accepted by society because voters will ask for, and allow, these types of politicians and policies.

    After the 2004 Beslan hostage crisis in Russia in which hundreds of hostages and children were killed, the Russian government vastly expanded the powers of its law enforcement agencies, asserted its control over the media, and even unilaterally replaced certain elected federal positions with executive appointees.

    Russian society digested these measures in stride, still shocked from the massacre in Beslan.

    In response to Monday’s bombing, officials in Russia are already talking about enhancing their security procedures, which will certainly include new government powers. I also doubt that the effects will stop with Russia’s security posture.

    The Chinese government already reacted by beefing up security at Beijing’s airport, deploying more police dogs throughout the terminals. I wouldn’t be surprised if governments in North America and Europe used this event as an excuse to initiate their own measures, going further down the slippery slope.

    None of these steps really matter in the big picture; loosely organized suicide bombers cannot be subdued with conventional forces or security measures… and for the regular folks who just want to go on living their lives, it’s like being caught in the middle of a battlefield without a weapon.

    I’m reminded of Herbert Hoover’s 1928 winning presidential campaign slogan, “A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage.” Perhaps the modern analogy is “a government agent on every corner, a wiretap on every phone.” It is, after all, for our security.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by DonTom View Post
    IMO, the "real reason" was well proved on 9-11-01. Too bad such security was not a lot tougher on 9-10-01 or before!

    The computer system in place selected many of the terrorists, but because they had nothing in their luggage that set off a red flag, they were allowed to continue.

Similar Threads

  1. Have any of you decided not to fly?
    By Eric in forum Motor Mouth
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-26-2011, 08:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •