TSA Screenings and Incontinence Pads

[Jim Hand]

I almost hate to post this in view of the more serious things we deal
with routinely on this forum, but its bothering me and I haven't been
able to get an answer. I'm approaching three years post Da Vinci and
still testing <0.01 on PSA, except for one reading about eleven months
ago that was an apparent error. I never recovered erectile function
or complete continence...and the latter prompts my question.

Since I also have a joint replacement I always set off the metal
detector at the airport security check. In the past, this has always
been resolved with a wand and the old pat down procedure. Now, I
guess I'll be treated to the new enhanced pat down procedure. I wear
a male pad during the day to keep from wetting my pants. When the TSA
"goon" can't feel my testicles or penis due to the pad am I going to
be invited to an actual strip search to remove or show them the pad?

I think it would be particularly embarrassing to have to explain to
traveling companions why I'm always treated so "specially". I might
be willing to put up with this if I thought it actually enhanced the
security of air travel but I believe this is strictly security theater
since any terrorist would likely conceal a weapon in their anal cavity
rather than externally. It seems we are always one step behind,
addressing for the previous threat. While its profitable for some
industries and for the TSA organization, I think its a feel-good
exercise for the public that's gone awry.

(Putting away the soapbox.)

[Steve Kramer]

"Jim Hand" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I almost hate to post this in view of the more serious things we deal
> with routinely on this forum, but its bothering me and I haven't been
> able to get an answer. I'm approaching three years post Da Vinci and
> still testing <0.01 on PSA, except for one reading about eleven months
> ago that was an apparent error. I never recovered erectile function
> or complete continence...and the latter prompts my question.
>
> Since I also have a joint replacement I always set off the metal
> detector at the airport security check. In the past, this has always
> been resolved with a wand and the old pat down procedure. Now, I
> guess I'll be treated to the new enhanced pat down procedure. I wear
> a male pad during the day to keep from wetting my pants. When the TSA
> "goon" can't feel my testicles or penis due to the pad am I going to
> be invited to an actual strip search to remove or show them the pad?
>
> I think it would be particularly embarrassing to have to explain to
> traveling companions why I'm always treated so "specially". I might
> be willing to put up with this if I thought it actually enhanced the
> security of air travel but I believe this is strictly security theater
> since any terrorist would likely conceal a weapon in their anal cavity
> rather than externally. It seems we are always one step behind,
> addressing for the previous threat. While its profitable for some
> industries and for the TSA organization, I think its a feel-good
> exercise for the public that's gone awry.
>
> (Putting away the soapbox.)

It's a reasonable question and certainly within the realm of 'acceptable'
concerns within this forum - in my opinion.

(So, getting the soapbox back out...)

It's also a reasonable question for all United States citizen within the
United States. Terry vs. Ohio prevents agents of the government from
patting you down unless the pat downer is reasonably suspicion that a crime
has occurred AND reasonably suspicion that YOU committed the crime AND
reasonably suspicion that YOU are armed. Every American who is patted down
in an airport by the TSA, specifically BECAUSE they are a government agency,
is a victim of a Civil Rights Violation.

Furthermore, an agent of the government may not reach in to your clothing
(according to case law that I cannot recall) nor compel you to a strip
search or body cavity search unless he "feels" something that could be
reasonably suspected to be a weapon or contraband. Your pad might feel like
a quantity of drugs, but how could he possibly articulate that? Especially
after you have mentioned that it is a pad. Pads and baggies of marijuana
feel identical. I cannot imagine a weapon that your pad could feel like.
Even C4 is much less pliable.

That said, the TSA is an out of control organization and until stopped will
continue to violate your constitutional rights.

[tarhoosier7]

On Nov 21, 1:35*pm, "Steve Kramer" <skra...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> "Jim Hand" <jdh...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> >I almost hate to post this in view of the more serious things we deal
> > with routinely on this forum, but its bothering me and I haven't been
> > able to get an answer. *I'm approaching three years post Da Vinci and
> > still testing <0.01 on PSA, except for one reading about eleven months
> > ago that was an apparent error. *I never recovered erectile function
> > or complete continence...and the latter prompts my question.
>
> > Since I also have a joint replacement I always set off the metal
> > detector at the airport security check. *In the past, this has always
> > been resolved with a wand and the old pat down procedure. *Now, I
> > guess I'll be treated to the new enhanced pat down procedure. *I wear
> > a male pad during the day to keep from wetting my pants. *When the TSA
> > "goon" can't feel my testicles or penis due to the pad am I going to
> > be invited to an actual strip search to remove or show them the pad?
>
> > I think it would be particularly embarrassing to have to explain to
> > traveling companions why I'm always treated so "specially". *I might
> > be willing to put up with this if I thought it actually enhanced the
> > security of air travel but I believe this is strictly security theater
> > since any terrorist would likely conceal a weapon in their anal cavity
> > rather than externally. *It seems we are always one step behind,
> > addressing for the previous threat. *While its profitable for some
> > industries and for the TSA organization, I think its a feel-good
> > exercise for the public that's gone awry.
>
> > (Putting away the soapbox.)
>
> It's a reasonable question and certainly within the realm of 'acceptable'
> concerns within this forum - in my opinion.
>
> (So, getting the soapbox back out...)
>
> It's also a reasonable question for all United States citizen within the
> United States. *Terry vs. Ohio prevents agents of the government from
> patting you down unless the pat downer is reasonably suspicion that a crime
> has occurred AND reasonably suspicion that YOU committed the crime AND
> reasonably suspicion that YOU are armed. *Every American who is patted down
> in an airport by the TSA, specifically BECAUSE they are a government agency,
> is a victim of a Civil Rights Violation.
>
> Furthermore, an agent of the government may not reach in to your clothing
> (according to case law that I cannot recall) nor compel you to a strip
> search or body cavity search unless he "feels" something that could be
> reasonably suspected to be a weapon or contraband. *Your pad might feellike
> a quantity of drugs, but how could he possibly articulate that? *Especially
> after you have mentioned that it is a pad. *Pads and baggies of marijuana
> feel identical. *I cannot imagine a weapon that your pad could feel like.
> Even C4 is much less pliable.
>
> That said, the TSA is an out of control organization and until stopped will
> continue to violate your constitutional rights.

AMEN, Brother

[dbu,]

In article
<[email protected]>,
tarhoosier7 <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Nov 21, 1:35*pm, "Steve Kramer" <skra...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> > "Jim Hand" <jdh...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> > >I almost hate to post this in view of the more serious things we deal
> > > with routinely on this forum, but its bothering me and I haven't been
> > > able to get an answer. *I'm approaching three years post Da Vinci and
> > > still testing <0.01 on PSA, except for one reading about eleven months
> > > ago that was an apparent error. *I never recovered erectile function
> > > or complete continence...and the latter prompts my question.
> >
> > > Since I also have a joint replacement I always set off the metal
> > > detector at the airport security check. *In the past, this has always
> > > been resolved with a wand and the old pat down procedure. *Now, I
> > > guess I'll be treated to the new enhanced pat down procedure. *I wear
> > > a male pad during the day to keep from wetting my pants. *When the TSA
> > > "goon" can't feel my testicles or penis due to the pad am I going to
> > > be invited to an actual strip search to remove or show them the pad?
> >
> > > I think it would be particularly embarrassing to have to explain to
> > > traveling companions why I'm always treated so "specially". *I might
> > > be willing to put up with this if I thought it actually enhanced the
> > > security of air travel but I believe this is strictly security theater
> > > since any terrorist would likely conceal a weapon in their anal cavity
> > > rather than externally. *It seems we are always one step behind,
> > > addressing for the previous threat. *While its profitable for some
> > > industries and for the TSA organization, I think its a feel-good
> > > exercise for the public that's gone awry.
> >
> > > (Putting away the soapbox.)
> >
> > It's a reasonable question and certainly within the realm of 'acceptable'
> > concerns within this forum - in my opinion.
> >
> > (So, getting the soapbox back out...)
> >
> > It's also a reasonable question for all United States citizen within the
> > United States. *Terry vs. Ohio prevents agents of the government from
> > patting you down unless the pat downer is reasonably suspicion that a crime
> > has occurred AND reasonably suspicion that YOU committed the crime AND
> > reasonably suspicion that YOU are armed. *Every American who is patted down
> > in an airport by the TSA, specifically BECAUSE they are a government agency,
> > is a victim of a Civil Rights Violation.
> >
> > Furthermore, an agent of the government may not reach in to your clothing
> > (according to case law that I cannot recall) nor compel you to a strip
> > search or body cavity search unless he "feels" something that could be
> > reasonably suspected to be a weapon or contraband. *Your pad might feel like
> > a quantity of drugs, but how could he possibly articulate that? *Especially
> > after you have mentioned that it is a pad. *Pads and baggies of marijuana
> > feel identical. *I cannot imagine a weapon that your pad could feel like.
> > Even C4 is much less pliable.
> >
> > That said, the TSA is an out of control organization and until stopped will
> > continue to violate your constitutional rights.
>
> AMEN, Brother

While we have to protect the public from terrorists blowing up airplanes
we also have to protect the rights of our innocent citizens, including
little kids and old folks who ....blink, blink are obviously are not a
threat, duh.

It seems to me there might be a better way and I think I know what it
is, politically as incorrect as it might be.

Be damned the political correctness and let's go with the profiling!!

I know what I would do if I were in charge.
--

[I.P. Freely]

Steve Kramer wrote:
> It's also a reasonable question for all United States citizen within the
> United States. Terry vs. Ohio prevents agents of the government from
> patting you down unless the pat downer is reasonably suspicion that a crime
> has occurred AND reasonably suspicion that YOU committed the crime AND
> reasonably suspicion that YOU are armed. Every American who is patted down
> in an airport by the TSA, specifically BECAUSE they are a government agency,
> is a victim of a Civil Rights Violation.

I'll bet that applies only to mandatory searches. We always have the
option of driving.

I.P.

[I.P. Freely]

• TSA screening has yet to catch one terrorist, as best as my quickie
search reveals.

• I am listening as I type to a lady whose bladder cancer catheter was
deliberately pulled out by screeners as they strip searched her with her
panties around her ankles. Ditto a male caller later.

• I'm guessing the goons looking at scanner screens see so dang many
private parts that their eyes glaze over way before their lunch break.
Who cares?

• They have to have seen and/or felt millions of male and female pads by
now. I got over caring who looks into my briefs the day after my
surgery, when a great-looking blond woke me up pulling my sheets off to
show my bloody, crusty, shriveled, stinking, purple toad to a whole
gaggle of young strangers ... interns, I hope, and not paying voyeurs.
Any TSA pervert who enjoys getting a whiff of my pad when I snap my
waistband shut is welcome to it.

• Any passenger rude enough to ask why it took the TSA half an hour to
clear me *deserves* a detailed and candid answer. Be careful what you
ask for, as I'm chock full of "TMI".

• All that said, this administration and much of the American public may
FINALLY *BEGIN* to recognize some of the impacts of political
correctness. Profiling, whether it's based on ethnicity, behavior,
travel history, point of origin, is much less intrusive than what's
goiNg on in airports these days. Which is worse ... offending EVERYONE
or offending a small percentage matching some profile?

• All it takes to get a bomb on board is strapping it on a woman wearing
Muslim headgear. THEY GET TO PAT THEMSELVES DOWN, and only about the
head and shoulders.

• How tough can it be to swallow a few ounces of high explosive and a
trigger, and then just phone home at the right moment? I doubt even a
drug dog will detect that.

• Overall, this is just another reason I'm glad I fly maybe once or
twice a decade.

I.P.

[Boothby171]

Can you imagine the police state if we ONLY focused on Muslim-looking
travellers? What if you have some black guys who don't LOOK like
Muslims, but are? Hell, let's search all the black guys now! Search
all the East Indians. And it's so hard to tell arabs from Jews, just
search them all!

Just don't search the white guys, 'cause they're all OK.

And what about white guys with beards? Just search the ones with
scraggly beards. I'll tell you this--Movember would become a
NIGHTMARE!

And kids? Shall we NOT search 12 years old and younger? Plenty of
pre-adolescents carrying automatic weapons outside the delicate
borders of the United States, Britain, France, and other "civilized"
countries. The MOMENT you stop searching 12 year olds, guess who
becomes the new mule?

This ALL assumes, of course, that there really is a continuing
terrorist threat, and that it's not just a ploy of the Jews and alien
Reptilians running the world under the secret New World Order/
Illuminati programs (I;m kidding! There really isn't any New World
Order. Trust me. You will remember nothing...)



I assume there is still a real, though subdued, terrorist threat. I
have absolutely NO idea how to defend against the larger, global
aspect of the threat, let alone the specific aspect of it at the
airports (and the train stations, bus depots, etc., etc.). Years ago,
working for a government subcontractor, I had the pleasure of
designing some anti-terrorist devices (defensive, rather than
offensive; no good, gory stories, I'm afraid). All I can figure is
that the good guys are still, somehow, doing something right, and the
bad guys are still fairly stupid. If the terrorists got much smarter,
they could be very, very difficult to stop. Fighting terrorism
successfully HAS to take place behind the scenes, with good military
intelligence. By the time you're worrying about someone bypassing a
security gate at the airport, it's almost too late. But you STILL
have to watch that gate, regardless.

</soap box>

> *tarhoosier7 <tarhoos...@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 1:35 pm, "Steve Kramer" <skra...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> > > "Jim Hand" <jdh...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:[email protected]....
>
> > > >I almost hate to post this in view of the more serious things we deal
> > > > with routinely on this forum, but its bothering me and I haven't been
> > > > able to get an answer. I'm approaching three years post Da Vinci and
> > > > still testing <0.01 on PSA, except for one reading about eleven months
> > > > ago that was an apparent error. I never recovered erectile function
> > > > or complete continence...and the latter prompts my question.
>
> > > > Since I also have a joint replacement I always set off the metal
> > > > detector at the airport security check. In the past, this has always
> > > > been resolved with a wand and the old pat down procedure. Now, I
> > > > guess I'll be treated to the new enhanced pat down procedure. I wear
> > > > a male pad during the day to keep from wetting my pants. When the TSA
> > > > "goon" can't feel my testicles or penis due to the pad am I going to
> > > > be invited to an actual strip search to remove or show them the pad?
>
> > > > I think it would be particularly embarrassing to have to explain to
> > > > traveling companions why I'm always treated so "specially". I might
> > > > be willing to put up with this if I thought it actually enhanced the
> > > > security of air travel but I believe this is strictly security theater
> > > > since any terrorist would likely conceal a weapon in their anal cavity
> > > > rather than externally. It seems we are always one step behind,
> > > > addressing for the previous threat. While its profitable for some
> > > > industries and for the TSA organization, I think its a feel-good
> > > > exercise for the public that's gone awry.
>
> > > > (Putting away the soapbox.)
>
> > > It's a reasonable question and certainly within the realm of 'acceptable'
> > > concerns within this forum - in my opinion.
>
> > > (So, getting the soapbox back out...)
>
> > > It's also a reasonable question for all United States citizen within the
> > > United States. Terry vs. Ohio prevents agents of the government from
> > > patting you down unless the pat downer is reasonably suspicion that acrime
> > > has occurred AND reasonably suspicion that YOU committed the crime AND
> > > reasonably suspicion that YOU are armed. Every American who is patteddown
> > > in an airport by the TSA, specifically BECAUSE they are a government agency,
> > > is a victim of a Civil Rights Violation.
>
> > > Furthermore, an agent of the government may not reach in to your clothing
> > > (according to case law that I cannot recall) nor compel you to a strip
> > > search or body cavity search unless he "feels" something that could be
> > > reasonably suspected to be a weapon or contraband. Your pad might feel like
> > > a quantity of drugs, but how could he possibly articulate that? Especially
> > > after you have mentioned that it is a pad. Pads and baggies of marijuana
> > > feel identical. I cannot imagine a weapon that your pad could feel like.
> > > Even C4 is much less pliable.
>
> > > That said, the TSA is an out of control organization and until stopped will
> > > continue to violate your constitutional rights.
>
> > AMEN, Brother
>
> While we have to protect the public from terrorists blowing up airplanes
> we also have to protect the rights of our innocent citizens, including
> little kids and old folks who ....blink, blink are obviously are not a
> threat, duh. *
>
> It seems to me there might be a better way and I think I know what it
> is, politically as incorrect as it might be. *
>
> Be damned the political correctness and let's go with the profiling!!
>
> I know what I would do if I were in charge.
> --

[Justin Thyme]

Comment at the bottom.

"Jim Hand" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I almost hate to post this in view of the more serious things we deal
> with routinely on this forum, but its bothering me and I haven't been
> able to get an answer. I'm approaching three years post Da Vinci and
> still testing <0.01 on PSA, except for one reading about eleven months
> ago that was an apparent error. I never recovered erectile function
> or complete continence...and the latter prompts my question.
>
> Since I also have a joint replacement I always set off the metal
> detector at the airport security check. In the past, this has always
> been resolved with a wand and the old pat down procedure. Now, I
> guess I'll be treated to the new enhanced pat down procedure. I wear
> a male pad during the day to keep from wetting my pants. When the TSA
> "goon" can't feel my testicles or penis due to the pad am I going to
> be invited to an actual strip search to remove or show them the pad?
>
> I think it would be particularly embarrassing to have to explain to
> traveling companions why I'm always treated so "specially". I might
> be willing to put up with this if I thought it actually enhanced the
> security of air travel but I believe this is strictly security theater
> since any terrorist would likely conceal a weapon in their anal cavity
> rather than externally. It seems we are always one step behind,
> addressing for the previous threat. While its profitable for some
> industries and for the TSA organization, I think its a feel-good
> exercise for the public that's gone awry.
>
> (Putting away the soapbox.)

I hardly fly at all any longer, but the idea of TSA screening just
absolutely disgusts me. As a citizen of this country I am supposed to be
presumed innocent unless or until proved otherwise. These invasive
screenings make me establish my innocence, contrary to my fundamental
rights. This is the Mexican justice system (I live in New Mexico) and
should not be practiced here. I understand Israel profiles its travelers
and I would support profiling here, too.

Ken Bland

[Alan Meyer]

I won't comment on the politics of all of this except to say that I
agree with everyone else that the TSA is doing as much harm as good.

However, on the specifics, I suggest that someone who has this problem
should contact the TSA, explain the problem, and ask what will happen
and whether any steps can be taken to make it less stressful and more
straightforward.

I remember many years ago, before the TSA nightmare began, there were
other kinds of craziness. You couldn't take a laptop computer out of
the country and bring it back in again unless you had a certificate from
someone, I forget who, to prove that the computer you were bringing back
was one you took out with you and therefore you don't owe any customs
duty on it. To get the certificate you had to show a bill of sale with
the computer serial number, or something like that.

Maybe we can get certificates from the TSA that say 1) I've got a metal
joint in my knee and 2) I'm wearing a diaper for health reasons.

But I'm afraid they won't go for it. They'd say, perhaps with
justification, that all the future terrorists would show up with metal
knees and diapers.

Alan

[Vince]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:12:57 -0700, Justin Thyme wrote:

> Comment at the bottom.
>
> "Jim Hand" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:b405bc69-cc61-4264-9505-
[email protected]...
>>I almost hate to post this in view of the more serious things we deal
>> with routinely on this forum, but its bothering me and I haven't been
>> able to get an answer. I'm approaching three years post Da Vinci and
>> still testing <0.01 on PSA, except for one reading about eleven months
>> ago that was an apparent error. I never recovered erectile function or
>> complete continence...and the latter prompts my question.
>>
>> Since I also have a joint replacement I always set off the metal
>> detector at the airport security check. In the past, this has always
>> been resolved with a wand and the old pat down procedure. Now, I guess
>> I'll be treated to the new enhanced pat down procedure. I wear a male
>> pad during the day to keep from wetting my pants. When the TSA "goon"
>> can't feel my testicles or penis due to the pad am I going to be
>> invited to an actual strip search to remove or show them the pad?
>>
>> I think it would be particularly embarrassing to have to explain to
>> traveling companions why I'm always treated so "specially". I might be
>> willing to put up with this if I thought it actually enhanced the
>> security of air travel but I believe this is strictly security theater
>> since any terrorist would likely conceal a weapon in their anal cavity
>> rather than externally. It seems we are always one step behind,
>> addressing for the previous threat. While its profitable for some
>> industries and for the TSA organization, I think its a feel-good
>> exercise for the public that's gone awry.
>>
>> (Putting away the soapbox.)
>
> I hardly fly at all any longer, but the idea of TSA screening just
> absolutely disgusts me. As a citizen of this country I am supposed to
> be presumed innocent unless or until proved otherwise. These invasive
> screenings make me establish my innocence, contrary to my fundamental
> rights. This is the Mexican justice system (I live in New Mexico) and
> should not be practiced here. I understand Israel profiles its
> travelers and I would support profiling here, too.
>
> Ken Bland

Ken, yes I've heard that Israel does profiling of airline travellers.
And when is the last time anybody has heard of one of their airliners
being hijacked or terrorized?

They need to quit worrying about being PC and just profile people.

JMO

Vince

[Alan Meyer]

On 11/22/2010 6:33 PM, Vince wrote:

>...
> Ken, yes I've heard that Israel does profiling of airline travellers.
> And when is the last time anybody has heard of one of their airliners
> being hijacked or terrorized?
>
> They need to quit worrying about being PC and just profile people.
>
> JMO
>
> Vince

I heard an interview with an Israeli anti-terrorism expert once who
said, "We don't look for weapons, we look for terrorists."

Apparently Richard Reid, the would be "shoe bomber" boarded an El Al
flight to Israel with no weapons in a practice dry run. His puppet
masters wanted to find out if he could get through Israeli security.
The Israelis spotted him immediately. They let him board the plane but
they sat an armed sky marshal right next to him, ready to let him have
it if he tried anything.

So Al Qaeda decided to try for an American flight instead.

Alan

[frank curtis]

On Nov 22, 6:45*pm, Alan Meyer <amey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 6:33 PM, Vince wrote:
>
> >...
> > Ken, yes I've heard that Israel does profiling of airline travellers.
> > And when is the last time anybody has heard of one of their airliners
> > being hijacked or terrorized?
>
> > They need to quit worrying about being PC and just profile people.
>
> > JMO
>
> > Vince
>
> I heard an interview with an Israeli anti-terrorism expert once who
> said, "We don't look for weapons, we look for terrorists."
>
> Apparently Richard Reid, the would be "shoe bomber" boarded an El Al
> flight to Israel with no weapons in a practice dry run. *His puppet
> masters wanted to find out if he could get through Israeli security.
> The Israelis spotted him immediately. *They let him board the plane but
> they sat an armed sky marshal right next to him, ready to let him have
> it if he tried anything.
>
> So Al Qaeda decided to try for an American flight instead.
>
> * * *Alan

I've already thought about this as I will be flying soon and I've
resolved to remove the pad prior to entering in line and then going
off to the restroom and putting on a new one after I'm through. If I
end up with a nice wet spot for them to feel, so much the better.

How about a guy wearing a kilt....now that's a youtube waiting to
happen!

[JayTKR]

Maybe one option would be to create some separate flights that were
specifically designated as not utilizing the new TSA screening methods that
some people object to. Then, those who object to the screening could select
those flights, and everyone on those flights would fly knowing that they and
all of their fellow passengers had not been screened using the new TSA
system. I guess one problem with that idea would be that the pilots and
flight attendants would not want to work those flights knowing that the
passengers had not been screened using the new TSA system.

Personally, I would not want to fly on such a flight. I would want to be
personally screened using the new TSA system, and I would want to know that
everyone else on the same flight had also been screened. I know the new
system is not perfect (no system is), and I know there would still be ways
around it. But, I think that more screening and security measures would be
better and safer than less.

I do think that the new system is awkward in the way that the OP pointed
out -- that when travelling with others, it creates a question of medical
privacy when the question arises as to why one person in the travelling
party continues to be singled out for special private-room screenings. Off
hand, I can't think of a solution or workaround for that one.


"Jim Hand" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I almost hate to post this in view of the more serious things we deal
> with routinely on this forum, but its bothering me and I haven't been
> able to get an answer. I'm approaching three years post Da Vinci and
> still testing <0.01 on PSA, except for one reading about eleven months
> ago that was an apparent error. I never recovered erectile function
> or complete continence...and the latter prompts my question.
>
> Since I also have a joint replacement I always set off the metal
> detector at the airport security check. In the past, this has always
> been resolved with a wand and the old pat down procedure. Now, I
> guess I'll be treated to the new enhanced pat down procedure. I wear
> a male pad during the day to keep from wetting my pants. When the TSA
> "goon" can't feel my testicles or penis due to the pad am I going to
> be invited to an actual strip search to remove or show them the pad?
>
> I think it would be particularly embarrassing to have to explain to
> traveling companions why I'm always treated so "specially". I might
> be willing to put up with this if I thought it actually enhanced the
> security of air travel but I believe this is strictly security theater
> since any terrorist would likely conceal a weapon in their anal cavity
> rather than externally. It seems we are always one step behind,
> addressing for the previous threat. While its profitable for some
> industries and for the TSA organization, I think its a feel-good
> exercise for the public that's gone awry.
>
> (Putting away the soapbox.)

[safire]

X-no-archive: yes On 11/23/10 10:21 AM, in article
icg11u$6ut$[email protected], "JayTKR" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Then, those who object to the screening could select
> those flights, and everyone on those flights would fly knowing that they and
> all of their fellow passengers had not been screened using the new TSA
> system. I guess one problem with that idea would be that the pilots and
> flight attendants would not want to work those flights knowing that the
> passengers had not been screened using the new TSA system.

The two major terrorist attacks in Europe after 2001 involved (underground)
trains: London and Madrid. The British and Spanish authorities did not start
requiring screening of train passengers to avoid repeat attacks, limiting
the amount of tooth paste you can bring with you or prohibit sharp
instruments. There have been no further terrorist attacks on trains in
Europe. Employees are not reluctant to work for railroad companies just
because there is no screening.

[Steve Kramer]

"frank curtis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Nov 22, 6:45 pm, Alan Meyer <amey...@yahoo.com> wrote:


I've already thought about this as I will be flying soon and I've
resolved to remove the pad prior to entering in line and then going
off to the restroom and putting on a new one after I'm through. If I
end up with a nice wet spot for them to feel, so much the better.

How about a guy wearing a kilt....now that's a youtube waiting to
happen!

==> I don't think I'll ever fly again (for more reasons than pat downs),
but if I did, I would seriously consider reaching for the TSA agent's junk
and see if he is okay with that.

[Steve Kramer]

"JayTKR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:icg11u$6ut$[email protected]..
> Maybe one option would be to create some separate flights that were
> specifically designated as not utilizing the new TSA screening methods
> that some people object to. Then, those who object to the screening could
> select those flights, and everyone on those flights would fly knowing that
> they and all of their fellow passengers had not been screened using the
> new TSA system. I guess one problem with that idea would be that the
> pilots and flight attendants would not want to work those flights knowing
> that the passengers had not been screened using the new TSA system.

I think you have a great idea with one focus ajustment to make it
constitutionally licit.

There ought to be a "safe flight" option. The passengers would pay triple
the cost for a flight. Passengers, pilots, and stewardesses would come to
the airport two hours before the flight. All would be strip searched and
their cavities probed (by former prison guards). All the luggage would be
searched (by former police officers). The planes would be guarded whenever
on the ground (by former Marines). And the flight would be guaranteed to
arrive without being successfully hijacked or blown from the skies.

All others would go to the airport half an hour before the flight, pay a
reasonable amount for the flight, go through a magnetometer, but have only a
99.97% chance of arriving safely.


--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD 0.56 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.40 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.1 until =0.1 10/10 PSAD 2.99 years
Illegitimati non carborundum

[Boothby171]

Actually, I think you'd have to charge <i>more</i> for the "unsafe"
flights--on average, you'd lose many more planes, pilots and crew on
those runs. You'd have to amortize out the cost of buying new planes,
training new pilots, etc, across all the passengers.



> > Maybe one option would be to create some separate flights that were
> > specifically designated as not utilizing the new TSA screening methods
> > that some people object to. *Then, those who object to the screening could
> > select those flights, and everyone on those flights would fly knowing that
> > they and all of their fellow passengers had not been screened using the
> > new TSA system. *I guess one problem with that idea would be that the
> > pilots and flight attendants would not want to work those flights knowing
> > that the passengers had not been screened using the new TSA system.
>
> I think you have a great idea with one focus ajustment to make it
> constitutionally licit.
>
> There ought to be a "safe flight" option. *The passengers would pay triple
> the cost for a flight. *Passengers, pilots, and stewardesses would cometo
> the airport two hours before the flight. *All would be strip searched and
> their cavities probed (by former prison guards). *All the luggage wouldbe
> searched (by former police officers). *The planes would be guarded whenever
> on the ground (by former Marines). *And the flight would be guaranteed to
> arrive without being successfully hijacked or blown from the skies.
>
> All others would go to the airport half an hour before the flight, pay a
> reasonable amount for the flight, go through a magnetometer, but have only a
> 99.97% chance of arriving safely.
>
> --

> Illegitimati non carborundum

(Don't let the bastards grind you down)

[Alan Meyer]

On 11/23/2010 8:14 AM, safire wrote:
....
> The two major terrorist attacks in Europe after 2001 involved (underground)
> trains: London and Madrid. The British and Spanish authorities did not start
> requiring screening of train passengers to avoid repeat attacks, limiting
> the amount of tooth paste you can bring with you or prohibit sharp
> instruments. There have been no further terrorist attacks on trains in
> Europe. Employees are not reluctant to work for railroad companies just
> because there is no screening.
>

That's one of the interesting incongruities in our TSA planning.

Here's another one:

The 911 hijackers used box cutting knives to hijack the planes. Since
then, anything with a sharp edge has been banned from flying. My wife
had a nail clipper seized and later a tiny pen knife with a one inch blade.

But if the cockpit doors are locked and the pilots won't open them,
there's no way to hijack a plane with box cutter or any edged weapon
short of a battle ax to batter down the door. The best a crazed
hijacker could do with a pocket knife would be to kill some passengers
before he was overcome by the others. He could do exactly as well or
even much better on the street rather than in an airplane.

And here's one that happened to me:

I waited in a 20 minute line and went through the security screen. A
guard stopped me at the other side and pointed out that I had some water
in the water bottle in my knapsack and I had to give him the bottle. I
wanted to keep the bottle and fill it at a fountain to have with me
during the flight, so I said, "okay, I'll drink the water." But that
wouldn't do. I could drink the water, but I had to do it on the other
side of the security barrier and go through the 20 minute line again
with my pockets empty, shoes off, etc.

He knew that what he was ordering me to do was stupid and he had the
grace to be embarrassed about it, but he had to follow orders or risk
losing his job. I was pissed off but I knew that escalating this
incident wouldn't work out for me. I handed him the bottle.

And one more:

I had a $430 digital camera that I had mistakenly brought with me in a
briefcase into the treatment room for prostate radiation. The x-rays
must have hit the camera because the display didn't work afterward. For
some reason, the functionality came back some time later.

I took it through an airport scanner and it went out again. It did
eventually come back, after a longer time.

On my next vacation I asked the guard to examine the camera and not put
it through the x-rays. He refused. He told me I could either give him
the camera or put it through the x-rays, or I could miss the flight.
Period. Those were my options.

I tried to reason with him but he was having none of that. Unlike the
water guard, this one was really belligerent. I took the camera through
the scanner and the display never worked again. The only consolation
was that it eventually became obsolete and I wanted to replace it anyway.

Alan

[Sure,Not]

On Nov 23, 4:21*am, "JayTKR" <Jay...@ertyuiqw.hjk> wrote:
> Maybe one option would be to create some separate flights that were
> specifically designated as not utilizing the newTSAscreening methods that
> some people object to. *Then, those who object to the screening could select
> those flights, and everyone on those flights would fly knowing that they and
> all of their fellow passengers had not been screened using the newTSA
> system. *I guess one problem with that idea would be that the pilots and
> flight attendants would not want to work those flights knowing that the
> passengers had not been screened using the newTSAsystem.
>
> Personally, I would not want to fly on such a flight. *I would want to be
> personally screened using the newTSAsystem, and I would want to know that
> everyone else on the same flight had also been screened. *I know the new
> system is not perfect (no system is), and I know there would still be ways
> around it. *But, I think that more screening and security measures would be
> better and safer than less.
>
> I do think that the new system is awkward in the way that the OP pointed
> out -- that when travelling with others, it creates a question of medical
> privacy when the question arises as to why one person in the travelling
> party continues to be singled out for special private-room screenings. *Off
> hand, I can't think of a solution or workaround for that one.
>
> "Jim Hand" <jdh...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> >I almost hate to post this in view of the more serious things we deal
> > with routinely on this forum, but its bothering me and I haven't been
> > able to get an answer. *I'm approaching three years post Da Vinci and
> > still testing <0.01 on PSA, except for one reading about eleven months
> > ago that was an apparent error. *I never recovered erectile function
> > or complete continence...and the latter prompts my question.
>
> > Since I also have a joint replacement I always set off the metal
> > detector at the airport security check. *In the past, this has always
> > been resolved with a wand and the old pat down procedure. *Now, I
> > guess I'll be treated to the new enhanced pat down procedure. *I wear
> > a male pad during the day to keep from wetting my pants. *When theTSA
> > "goon" can't feel my testicles or penis due to the pad am I going to
> > be invited to an actual strip search to remove or show them the pad?
>
> > I think it would be particularly embarrassing to have to explain to
> > traveling companions why I'm always treated so "specially". *I might
> > be willing to put up with this if I thought it actually enhanced the
> > security of air travel but I believe this is strictly security theater
> > since any terrorist would likely conceal a weapon in their anal cavity
> > rather than externally. *It seems we are always one step behind,
> > addressing for the previous threat. *While its profitable for some
> > industries and for theTSAorganization, I think its a feel-good
> > exercise for the public that's gone awry.
>
> > (Putting away the soapbox.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL. Ok, I'll agree. So those flights would be free as a decoy?

But we have to make it Universal. If you want a happy meal, you must
submit to a blood test, probing and stand on a scale in front of
everyone. Only if you pass can you then have the happy meal, or
burger, or pizza, or whatever.

Slippery slope.

Do you think those that want to cause us harm are so short-sighted as
to only target an airplane? Why not a Walmart on Black Friday? Are
you willing to submit to this type of invasive screening everywhere
you go?

[Boothby171]

Not Sure,

Agreed...if a terrorist wants you dead, and is halfway competent at
his chosen profession, you're dead.

What I have to wonder is: why aren't there MORE attacks???

* Maybe there's more bluster than action from these guys
* Maybe our government is better at uncovering terrorist plots than we
give them credit for
* Maybe the terrorists are actually fairly incompetent (all the smart
ones STAYED in engineering school, and now work for IBM and XEROX!)

I don't know. But I DO know (from my stint at creating anti-terrorist
devices) that any open society such as ours (US), or Britain, etc.,
can never truly protect itself or its citizens from a competent,
driven terrorist organization. We RELY on trust to make things work,
whether that's a good idea or not.



On Nov 23, 12:42*pm, "Sure,Not" <bamberb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 4:21*am, "JayTKR" <Jay...@ertyuiqw.hjk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Maybe one option would be to create some separate flights that were
> > specifically designated as not utilizing the newTSAscreening methods that
> > some people object to. *Then, those who object to the screening couldselect
> > those flights, and everyone on those flights would fly knowing that they and
> > all of their fellow passengers had not been screened using the newTSA
> > system. *I guess one problem with that idea would be that the pilots and
> > flight attendants would not want to work those flights knowing that the
> > passengers had not been screened using the newTSAsystem.
>
> > Personally, I would not want to fly on such a flight. *I would want to be
> > personally screened using the newTSAsystem, and I would want to know that
> > everyone else on the same flight had also been screened. *I know the new
> > system is not perfect (no system is), and I know there would still be ways
> > around it. *But, I think that more screening and security measures would be
> > better and safer than less.
>
> > I do think that the new system is awkward in the way that the OP pointed
> > out -- that when travelling with others, it creates a question of medical
> > privacy when the question arises as to why one person in the travelling
> > party continues to be singled out for special private-room screenings. *Off
> > hand, I can't think of a solution or workaround for that one.
>
> > "Jim Hand" <jdh...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]....
>
> > >I almost hate to post this in view of the more serious things we deal
> > > with routinely on this forum, but its bothering me and I haven't been
> > > able to get an answer. *I'm approaching three years post Da Vinci and
> > > still testing <0.01 on PSA, except for one reading about eleven months
> > > ago that was an apparent error. *I never recovered erectile function
> > > or complete continence...and the latter prompts my question.
>
> > > Since I also have a joint replacement I always set off the metal
> > > detector at the airport security check. *In the past, this has always
> > > been resolved with a wand and the old pat down procedure. *Now, I
> > > guess I'll be treated to the new enhanced pat down procedure. *I wear
> > > a male pad during the day to keep from wetting my pants. *When theTSA
> > > "goon" can't feel my testicles or penis due to the pad am I going to
> > > be invited to an actual strip search to remove or show them the pad?
>
> > > I think it would be particularly embarrassing to have to explain to
> > > traveling companions why I'm always treated so "specially". *I might
> > > be willing to put up with this if I thought it actually enhanced the
> > > security of air travel but I believe this is strictly security theater
> > > since any terrorist would likely conceal a weapon in their anal cavity
> > > rather than externally. *It seems we are always one step behind,
> > > addressing for the previous threat. *While its profitable for some
> > > industries and for theTSAorganization, I think its a feel-good
> > > exercise for the public that's gone awry.
>
> > > (Putting away the soapbox.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> LOL. *Ok, I'll agree. *So those flights would be free as a decoy?
>
> But we have to make it Universal. * If you want a happy meal, you must
> submit to a blood test, probing and stand on a scale in front of
> everyone. *Only if you pass can you then have the happy meal, or
> burger, or pizza, or whatever.
>
> Slippery slope.
>
> Do you think those that want to cause us harm are so short-sighted as
> to only target an airplane? *Why not a Walmart on Black Friday? *Are
> you willing to submit to this type of invasive screening everywhere
> you go?

[Dale j.]

In article <[email protected]>, Alan Meyer <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On 11/23/2010 8:14 AM, safire wrote:
> ...
> > The two major terrorist attacks in Europe after 2001 involved (underground)
> > trains: London and Madrid. The British and Spanish authorities did not start
> > requiring screening of train passengers to avoid repeat attacks, limiting
> > the amount of tooth paste you can bring with you or prohibit sharp
> > instruments. There have been no further terrorist attacks on trains in
> > Europe. Employees are not reluctant to work for railroad companies just
> > because there is no screening.
> >
>
> That's one of the interesting incongruities in our TSA planning.
>
> Here's another one:
>
> The 911 hijackers used box cutting knives to hijack the planes. Since
> then, anything with a sharp edge has been banned from flying. My wife
> had a nail clipper seized and later a tiny pen knife with a one inch blade.
>
> But if the cockpit doors are locked and the pilots won't open them,
> there's no way to hijack a plane with box cutter or any edged weapon
> short of a battle ax to batter down the door. The best a crazed
> hijacker could do with a pocket knife would be to kill some passengers
> before he was overcome by the others. He could do exactly as well or
> even much better on the street rather than in an airplane.
>
> And here's one that happened to me:
>
> I waited in a 20 minute line and went through the security screen. A
> guard stopped me at the other side and pointed out that I had some water
> in the water bottle in my knapsack and I had to give him the bottle. I
> wanted to keep the bottle and fill it at a fountain to have with me
> during the flight, so I said, "okay, I'll drink the water." But that
> wouldn't do. I could drink the water, but I had to do it on the other
> side of the security barrier and go through the 20 minute line again
> with my pockets empty, shoes off, etc.
>
> He knew that what he was ordering me to do was stupid and he had the
> grace to be embarrassed about it, but he had to follow orders or risk
> losing his job. I was pissed off but I knew that escalating this
> incident wouldn't work out for me. I handed him the bottle.
>
> And one more:
>
> I had a $430 digital camera that I had mistakenly brought with me in a
> briefcase into the treatment room for prostate radiation. The x-rays
> must have hit the camera because the display didn't work afterward. For
> some reason, the functionality came back some time later.
>
> I took it through an airport scanner and it went out again. It did
> eventually come back, after a longer time.
>
> On my next vacation I asked the guard to examine the camera and not put
> it through the x-rays. He refused. He told me I could either give him
> the camera or put it through the x-rays, or I could miss the flight.
> Period. Those were my options.
>
> I tried to reason with him but he was having none of that. Unlike the
> water guard, this one was really belligerent. I took the camera through
> the scanner and the display never worked again. The only consolation
> was that it eventually became obsolete and I wanted to replace it anyway.
>
> Alan

As for me, I won't be traveling by commercial air ever again. I'll
drive my car or take a bus, train, but I won't be going though this
gamut, thank you very much. Besides, air travel is getting too
expensive with only a bag of peanuts and a can of pop for lunch, if
you're lucky.

Going back a few decades, air travel was special, people dressed up, it
was a special treat. Those days are gone forever. It is a herd of
cattle boarding a commercial airliner today. We are rapidly becoming
like a third world country, starting with air travel, sadly.
--
Email: [email protected]

Seven years already, going on eight.

[I.P. Freely]

Boothby171 wrote:
> why aren't there MORE attacks???
>
A big part of the reason is that many thousands of the terrorists and
scores of their leaders are now dead and the living ones are kinda busy,
thanks to two presidents and hundreds of thousands of patriots willing
to risk public animosity and their own lives to fight them.

[Boothby171]

On Nov 23, 6:56*pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
> Boothby171 wrote:
> > why aren't there MORE attacks???
>
> A big part of the reason is that many thousands of the terrorists and
> scores of their leaders are now dead and the living ones are kinda busy,
> thanks to two presidents and hundreds of thousands of patriots willing
> to risk public animosity and their own lives to fight them.

Well, I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and even *I* think they're doing a
hell of a job!

(though, honestly, we didn't help any by invading and taking over
Iraq; I think we made things worse. At least after Obama took over
the banks and General Motors, they eventually paid us back and started
taking care of business themselves!)

[watcher]

On 2010-11-23, Steve Kramer <[email protected]> wrote:
> "frank curtis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 22, 6:45 pm, Alan Meyer <amey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've already thought about this as I will be flying soon and I've
> resolved to remove the pad prior to entering in line and then going
> off to the restroom and putting on a new one after I'm through. If I
> end up with a nice wet spot for them to feel, so much the better.
>
> How about a guy wearing a kilt....now that's a youtube waiting to
> happen!
>
>==> I don't think I'll ever fly again (for more reasons than pat downs),
> but if I did, I would seriously consider reaching for the TSA agent's junk
> and see if he is okay with that.
>
>

At the rate the TSA is escalating the intensity of the search process, I can't
help wondering when they'll arrive at the ultimate solution: everyone strips
and flies naked. Males and females will be separated on arrival at the
airport, herded into their respective intake areas, where they strip and hand
their clothes over to the TSA for "safekeeping". All departees will be subject
to body cavity searches, of course, before boarding, and all clothes will be
inspected before being packed into the plane. The planes will be divided into
male and female compartments, and no peeking allowed! At the far end, you'll
be given back what are, hopefully, your clothes and you go on your way.
Sounds extreme, but it's coming - and, in time, the sheeple will go along with
it.

W.

[Vince]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:46:07 -0600, Dale j. wrote:
>
> As for me, I won't be traveling by commercial air ever again. I'll
> drive my car or take a bus, train, but I won't be going though this
> gamut, thank you very much. Besides, air travel is getting too
> expensive with only a bag of peanuts and a can of pop for lunch, if
> you're lucky.
>
> Going back a few decades, air travel was special, people dressed up, it
> was a special treat. Those days are gone forever. It is a herd of
> cattle boarding a commercial airliner today. We are rapidly becoming
> like a third world country, starting with air travel, sadly.

I'm with you Dale. I've been flying since 1969. Flying used to be
enjoyable and it was something special. Now days it's just like herding
cattle. I won't ever fly again either, unless some emergency makes it
necessary. I'll drive, take the train or bus from now on. I took the
train from Chicago to Denver 4 or 5 years ago and it was a very enjoyable
trip. As long as you're not pressed for time that is, as they are rarely
on schedule.

Vince

[Gourd Dancer]

If you call using bailout funds to pay off the loan, then I guess you are
accurate. However, TARP money will come out of your pocket eventually,
therefore, you and all of us are paying back GM's loan. Please check your
facts and then we all can stay on topic.

My source - Neil Barofsy and Tom Carper in April 2010 after the GM
announcement.

GD


"Boothby171" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Nov 23, 6:56 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
> Boothby171 wrote:
> > why aren't there MORE attacks???
>
> A big part of the reason is that many thousands of the terrorists and
> scores of their leaders are now dead and the living ones are kinda busy,
> thanks to two presidents and hundreds of thousands of patriots willing
> to risk public animosity and their own lives to fight them.

Well, I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and even *I* think they're doing a
hell of a job!

(though, honestly, we didn't help any by invading and taking over
Iraq; I think we made things worse. At least after Obama took over
the banks and General Motors, they eventually paid us back and started
taking care of business themselves!)

[Steve Kramer]

"Boothby171" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Actually, I think you'd have to charge <i>more</i> for the "unsafe"
flights--on average, you'd lose many more planes, pilots and crew on
those runs. You'd have to amortize out the cost of buying new planes,
training new pilots, etc, across all the passengers.

==> Steve, just a reminder of how things were before 9/11. You went to an
airport, went through a magnatometer after emptying your pockets, and got on
a plane. You were permitted to take onboard small knives, fingernail
clippers, etc. Cops were routed around the magnatometers and got on with
their weapons. Air Marshals would sit on random flights. If someone used a
personal weapon to hijack a plane, everyone in the plane "knew" they would
be spending a day in Seria or Cuba. If they were an American service man,
they might be in serious danger. Otherwise, overwhelming the hijacker was
was not considered worth the risk - "if just one person dies...".

Then, 9/11 comes and the federal government rachets up their perception of
security. Flying became much more difficult and time consuming. Prices of
tickets soared. Airlines went out of business. Hubs disappeared or became
largely vacant. Government grew astoundingly. Eventually, the government's
increase in its own numbers, combined with Congress's spending and unfunded
mandates took the country to the brink of insolvency - some say to
inevitable insolvency.

But, if you and I had and a few intelligent men sat down to discuss the
issues as a problem resoultion process, our final report after 9/11 would
have been "We do nothing. Never again will anyone allow the hijacking of an
airliner."

One more reminder... TSA has never caught a terrorist or found a bomb. So,
why haven't we had any skyjackings since 9/11? We were having 10 a years
until 9/11. Why none now? I say it's because potential skyjackers know
that if they get by security with a weapon, there will be a hundred men
willing to take a cut or a bullet to save the rest. After the Pennsylvania
crash, manning up has become fashionable in airplanes.

[Steve Kramer]

"Boothby171" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Nov 23, 6:56 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
> Boothby171 wrote:
> > why aren't there MORE attacks???
>
> A big part of the reason is that many thousands of the terrorists and
> scores of their leaders are now dead and the living ones are kinda busy,
> thanks to two presidents and hundreds of thousands of patriots willing
> to risk public animosity and their own lives to fight them.

Well, I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and even *I* think they're doing a
hell of a job!

(though, honestly, we didn't help any by invading and taking over
Iraq; I think we made things worse. At least after Obama took over
the banks and General Motors, they eventually paid us back and started
taking care of business themselves!)

==> That's an interesting world you live in. GM "said" in a commercial that
they paid us back. That was a lie. They paid off their first loan with a
second. In law, that's called "kiting". "The banks" have not paid us back.
And when they do, it will be with a much devalued dollar.

Even a liberal ought to rail against unconstitutional measures regardless of
the stated purpose for the violations of our nations highest law.

[Boothby171]

Son of a gun!!

http://www.thepoliticalclass.com/201...overnment.html

(Back to topic, then!)

On Nov 24, 2:24*am, "Gourd Dancer" <fa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you call using bailout funds to pay off the loan, then I guess you are
> accurate. However, TARP money will come out of your pocket eventually,
> therefore, you and all of us are paying back GM's loan. Please check your
> facts and then we all can stay on topic.
>
> My source - Neil Barofsy and Tom Carper in April 2010 after the GM
> announcement.
>
> GD
>
> "Boothby171" <boothby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 23, 6:56 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
>
> > Boothby171 wrote:
> > > why aren't there MORE attacks???
>
> > A big part of the reason is that many thousands of the terrorists and
> > scores of their leaders are now dead and the living ones are kinda busy,
> > thanks to two presidents and hundreds of thousands of patriots willing
> > to risk public animosity and their own lives to fight them.
>
> Well, I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and even *I* think they're doing a
> hell of a job!
>
> (though, honestly, we didn't help any by invading and taking over
> Iraq; I think we made things worse. *At least after Obama took over
> the banks and General Motors, they eventually paid us back and started
> taking care of business themselves!)

[safire]

X-no-archive: yes On 11/24/10 2:15 PM, in article
icj363$a79$[email protected], "Steve Kramer"
<[email protected]> wrote:


> Eventually, the government's
> increase in its own numbers, combined with Congress's spending and unfunded
> mandates took the country to the brink of insolvency - some say to
> inevitable insolvency.

???
Maybe you should tell the financial markets. They haven't noticed any
federal insolvency yet. And that spending, is that the money wasted on Iraq?
>
> We were having 10 [hijackings] a year[s]
> until 9/11.

There was only one (1) hijacking in the U.S. During the 90s. A FedEx plane
was hijacked by a disgruntled employee.

[I.P. Freely]

Boothby171 wroteAt least after Obama took over
>> the banks and General Motors, they eventually paid us back and started
>> taking care of business themselves!)

We (taxpayers) put $50B into GM. We got back $12B.
The UAW put zero in, and "got back" $4B.
*IF* GM stock goes high enough (at least $51 per share) for us to break
even, the UAW is getting close to $10B for an investment of zero.
On top of that, the initial GM IPO was offered under the table to China,
Saudi Arabia, etc. before U.S. investors were allowed to invest. Once
China's and Saudi Arabia's demand was sated, we got a -- higher priced
-- crack at the market. IOW, the UAW came out best (infinite return of
investment), China and Saudi Arabia next by an infinite margin, U.S. IPO
investors third, and U.S. taxpayers, the only losers so far, an
extremely distant fourth. No one outside GM, the administration, or
their media sycophants claims we are anywhere near even.

What does that say about how much our leaders think of us?

I.P.

[safire]

X-no-archive: yes On 11/24/10 7:22 PM, in article
FJcHo.38542$[email protected], "I.P. Freely"
<[email protected]> wrote:


> The UAW put zero in, and "got back" $4B.
Uhh, not the UAW, but the UAW Retiree Medical BenefitsTrust. You see, you're
not the only person whose medical benefits are provided for by a former
employer. The retired auto workers had a claim in GM's bankruptcy for future
benefits. That claim was paid for in the form of shares in new GM.



> *IF* GM stock goes high enough (at least $51 per share) for us to break
> even, the UAW is getting close to $10B for an investment of zero.

Do you put a zero value on your retirement benefits?

[Jim Hand]

Well, since I started this mess maybe I can ask that we think about
finishing it. We're an awfully long way from a prostate cancer
topic! Regarding my original concern about how to handle going
through an enhanced pat down with a male incontinence pad, I reached
the same conclusion as Frank Curtis...take the pad off before the
screening area, go through the grope and put a new pad on after
security. I know for sure that that's what I would do if I was
traveling with business associates. The fact that I was incontinent
would have made it around the corporate center in a very short time.
I bet that would have been career limiting! Since I'm retired, I
think I'll just go through the process and see what happens. If I pee
on the screener's hand I'll apologize. Thanks to everyone for their
input!

If we do continue the discussion, put me down for increased use of
profiling. That's something this liberal never thought he would say!

[I.P. Freely]

Jim Hand wrote:
> take the pad off before the screening area
....
> The fact that I was incontinent
> would have made it around the corporate center in a very short time.
> I bet that would have been career limiting! ...

I see no reason for that. If you pass the grope, no observers will learn
anything. If you fail the grope and they want to get in your pants,
that's done in a private room. If friends ask why you had to go to a
private room, just shrug, or maybe say "They didn't believe what they
felt". That should be GOOD for one's career. Besides, there's no way I'm
peeing in my pants for the benefit of my business associates (I also
don't know why it should affect a career, considering how long it
normally takes us to proceed from overtly healthy to incapacitated. (My
onc says I should have at least a decade between PSA recurrence and
serious symptoms, even with my G-8.)

I don't care who knows I've had cancer, and sometimes joke about my
incontinence. Am I just that naive, or do that many people hold PC
against us?

I.P.

[Alan Meyer]

On 11/24/2010 7:26 PM, I.P. Freely wrote:

....
> I don't care who knows I've had cancer, and sometimes joke about my
> incontinence. Am I just that naive, or do that many people hold PC
> against us?
....

This is really a good topic for another thread but, since we're here,
I'll say that I don't care who knows either. I don't advertise that
I've had cancer but I don't hide it either.

Some people consider illness to be shameful or the after effects of
incontinence or impotence to be shameful. But I don't think that people
should be ashamed.

Anyone who looks for my name on the Internet will find all of these
postings and know it all.

Alan

[I.P. Freely]

Alan Meyer wrote:
> Anyone who looks for my name on the Internet will find all of these
> postings and know it all.

Probably a good attitude, until a few twisted stalkers mess with your
virtual and real lives.

I.P.

[I.P. Freely]

Alan Meyer wrote:
> Anyone who looks for my name on the Internet will find all of these
> postings and know it all.

Probably a good attitude, until a few twisted stalkers mess with your
virtual and real lives. The sane ones can often be forced to retreat by
revealing their personal data and behavior to their personal and/or
professional peers, but those with nothing at stake and no conscience
are tough to silence without legal action. Anonymity is the simplest
solution.

I.P.

[Alan Meyer]

On 11/29/2010 2:01 PM, I.P. Freely wrote:
> Alan Meyer wrote:
>> Anyone who looks for my name on the Internet will find all of these
>> postings and know it all.
>
> Probably a good attitude, until a few twisted stalkers mess with your
> virtual and real lives. The sane ones can often be forced to retreat by
> revealing their personal data and behavior to their personal and/or
> professional peers, but those with nothing at stake and no conscience
> are tough to silence without legal action. Anonymity is the simplest
> solution.
>
> I.P.

We've had this conversation before. I've been posting to the Internet
using my real name for at least 15 years and never had a problem of that
kind. I've had plenty of spam, but that seems to be under control now.
I get no more than 10-20 a day, down from as much as 200, and 75% of
it is detected by spam filters.

For me, the openness of standing behind what I say in my own name, and
the ease that people have of finding me, trumps the fear of miscreants.

Telemarketers and robocalls have been a much bigger problem for me than
Internet jerks. However my wife and I each want people to be able to
call us when necessary, so we put up with it. The "do not call" list
has helped a lot though it hasn't solved the problem.

Have you ever actually had a stalker after you?

Alan

[MZB]

On 11/29/2010 3:08 PM, Alan Meyer wrote:
> On 11/29/2010 2:01 PM, I.P. Freely wrote:
>> Alan Meyer wrote:
>>> Anyone who looks for my name on the Internet will find all of these
>>> postings and know it all.
>>
>> Probably a good attitude, until a few twisted stalkers mess with your
>> virtual and real lives. The sane ones can often be forced to retreat by
>> revealing their personal data and behavior to their personal and/or
>> professional peers, but those with nothing at stake and no conscience
>> are tough to silence without legal action. Anonymity is the simplest
>> solution.
>>
>> I.P.
>
> We've had this conversation before. I've been posting to the Internet
> using my real name for at least 15 years and never had a problem of that
> kind. I've had plenty of spam, but that seems to be under control now. I
> get no more than 10-20 a day, down from as much as 200, and 75% of it is
> detected by spam filters.
>
> For me, the openness of standing behind what I say in my own name, and
> the ease that people have of finding me, trumps the fear of miscreants.
>
> Telemarketers and robocalls have been a much bigger problem for me than
> Internet jerks. However my wife and I each want people to be able to
> call us when necessary, so we put up with it. The "do not call" list has
> helped a lot though it hasn't solved the problem.
>
> Have you ever actually had a stalker after you?
>
> Alan
I agree. I am getting sick and tired of those who hide like little
girlie girls behind some phoney baloney name.

Abe Lincoln

[Steve Kramer]

"Alan Meyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On 11/24/2010 7:26 PM, I.P. Freely wrote:

> Some people consider illness to be shameful or the after effects of
> incontinence or impotence to be shameful. But I don't think that people
> should be ashamed.

I don't know if "shame" is the correct word. I also don't hide it, but I
generally don't talk about the SEs either unless I am talking to someone who
might benefit from my experience. I have never felt shame - but I really do
not like the feeling that someone is feeling sorry for me.

Every once in a while and old occupational acquaintance will ask how I am
doing and another in the area will say, "You have cancer?!" I feel pretty
good about that.

However, during 2006, one of my favorite workers died of prostate cancer and
I didn't know HE had it. He always said his limping was because of a bad
back. He was one of those guys who, no matter how early I arrived, he was
there before me. We talked a lot, but never about cancer. I often wonder
if he would have benefited more if he knew I had PCa and he could have
discussed it with me.



--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD 0.56 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.40 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.1 until =0.1 10/10 PSAD 2.99 years
Illegitimati non carborundum