Put on a kilt, and strike a blow against stupidity!
November 14, 2010 10:03 PM   Subscribe

The Washington Examiner argues the naked body scanners you now may have to go through at airports are not making you safer but are a result of efforts of a small but well-connected lobby group. The uproar over these scanners and the extra-creepy frisking you may have to endure if you opt-out has been well-documented (previous example) but so far we haven't seen any actual results. Enter Jeffrey Goldberg: for TSA Opt-Out Day (Nov 24), he would like to suggest a 'superfantastic' new twist: commando-style kilt-wearing: "While it is probably illegal to fly without pants, I can't imagine that it's illegal to fly without underpants."

This should be a fun day for the TSA.
posted by krautland (12 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: There's an Opt-Out Day post already and I think at least two other open TSA posts, maybe add this to one of those. -- cortex



 
I hope it isn't illegal to fly without pants, or lots of women and a few men (including anyone who wears a kilt to fly, kilts not being pants) are already on the wrong side of the law.
posted by kenko at 10:08 PM on November 14, 2010


Problem: the people who make these policies don't actually work at the gates, and don't care about anything that either the flying public or the gate drones actually have to go through.
posted by 1adam12 at 10:11 PM on November 14, 2010


Seems like pretty standard government contract jockeying to me.
posted by eugenen at 10:12 PM on November 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


Thanks for the brief summary of such an important issue.
posted by grouse at 10:13 PM on November 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


Problem: the people who make these policies don't actually work at the gates, and don't care about anything that either the flying public or the gate drones actually have to go through.

The point is for everybody to opt out and get those gate people to give up.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 10:14 PM on November 14, 2010


for TSA Opt-Out Day (Nov 24)
Previously.

well-documented (previous example)
Previously deleted thread.
posted by vidur at 10:16 PM on November 14, 2010


Thanks for the brief summary of such an important issue.

Eh, it's just the same old thong and dance.
posted by jonmc at 10:16 PM on November 14, 2010


Ladies?
posted by NoraReed at 10:19 PM on November 14, 2010


The TSA's going to have a regular boxer rebellion if they don't watch it.
posted by hanoixan at 10:29 PM on November 14, 2010 [3 favorites]


Fuck, I totally had this idea a day or so ago. But yeah, California State Tartan, big leather cock-ring... regimental.

Not that I fly that often, but I'll totally do it. They wanna make the dance uncomfortable for people... what happens when someone shows up who likes these steps and brought their dancing shoes cock-ring? ;-)
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 10:30 PM on November 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


Again, I find myself wondering a number of things about these porno-scanners.

They say they don't save the images, but the US Air Marshalls have apparently saved thousands of them. When will the big scandal break about images being traded amongst TSA workers? Will they leak on the interwebz? Maybe Wikileaks will obtain a whole zipfile of them and share with the world.

They say you can opt-out, but they also say they plan on making the opt-out search as demeaning as uncomfortable as possible for those who choose it. But what about those who have to administer the opt-out search? I can understand the commando-kilt search as part of this plan. But honestly, as a homosexual, I don't have any problem at all with a man groping my privates. Do I then ask for a female TSA worker? What if she's getting turned on by the process? Should I demand a lesbian TSA worker? What if they can't provide one?

What exactly are the health effects of these scanners? Already two airlines have told their flight crews not to use the scanners because repeated exposure has undetermined risks. What about those who live their lives Up In The Skies? I have at least two friend who fly 3-5 times a week for work. Should they be concerned about their health from the radiation exposure?

What point is there to any of this theater when it takes very little to get an "approved TSA shipper" status letter, meaning I can go to the cargo drop and put things on airplanes. Sure, they can search cargo via x-ray and such, but at busier airports, do they really do this? What about the air cargo containers which are loaded on-site at FedEx and UPS locations around the country? There certainly isn't the same level of security at those sites -- I've walked into the backroom of the local FedEx building more than once, and could easily have put whatever I wanted into any of the cargo containers I found sitting there. Or do cargo planes not matter as much because they aren't carrying passengers?

And what about luggage loaders or meal service workers? How carefully are they screened before they go onto the tarmac? It wouldn't take much for anyone who truly desires to take down an airplane to gain a position working with one of them, being very compliant for a couple of years, and then one day decide that it's time for them to put that bomb into the luggage hold or that soda rack that's actually full of explosives into the galley. How do these porno-scanners work in those instances?

I still plan on taking a dose of viagra before the next time I fly and then telling the TSA agent that I want to look whomever is scrutinizing my genitals in the eye while they do it, and then seeing what the person's reaction is during the search. I think it's only by making it as unpleasant for those doing the search as possible that we'll actually get the organization as a whole to realize that the average traveller finds this whole kabuki distasteful.

And if you don't think that you should punish the low level workers for doing their job... I'm sure those sitting in on the lunch counters in the south weren't too worried about the feelings of the soda jerks at Woolworths, or that Rosa Parks wasn't really thinking about the bus driver's feelings when she decided she was too tired to move from the front of the bus

It is the average person making daily work difficult for average workers which affects change. Otherwise, it's a war of lobbyists who can convince policymakers vs. people too far detached from the enacted policy to make any difference.
posted by hippybear at 10:30 PM on November 14, 2010 [5 favorites]


Fuck, I totally had this idea a day or so ago. But yeah, California State Tartan, big leather cock-ring... regimental.

That's a bit over-the-top. Perhaps a tasteful ribbon?
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:37 PM on November 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


« Older Build it, and they will float   |   You are sitting in your chair, in front of you is... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments