Sunday, November 21, 2010

OBAMA IS FEELING-UP AMERICA

What is it that's driving Americans crazy, as illustrated by the TSA's horrendously invasive groping and feel up policies advocated to combat terrorists getting on planes? It's politicians who demand that we pay a personally horrible cost and be subjected to personal degradation that they exempt themselves from.


I suggest that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and every member of their families be subject to the exact policies they're demanding be imposed on Americans for at least a year before those policies are applied to us. Obama-Hillary are refusing the feel up groping she imposing on children.


If there is anyone who is giving us probably cause to search him or her it's Obama and Hillary. They are in the process of destroying America, much like terrorists. Sounds like probably cause to me.


I think Obama and Hillary be groped and felt up every time they get on a plane, even when getting on Air Force One. If they're scared that the pilots who are flying the plane will crash it, how can we trust the alleged president and secretary of state?


What are the chances of this happening…zero, nada, zilch. But one can dream.

8 comments:

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

I am so confused.

I hate these security measures too. I refuse to fly unless its the only to travel; I'd rather drive, or ride on a train (as I did when I lived in Chicago and I was visiting family. It wasn't even a quick high speed train, just the standard American AMTRAK, but it was cheap, convenient (and subsidized by both Republican and Democratic Congresses and Administrations). Would love to be able to do that to more destinations from more places. Would love more if we had higher speed rails.

When I board a plan, personally, I'm more worried that its going to crash from technical issues than I am that terrorists are going to jump out of their seats and hijack the plan. Honestly, if you take away 2001, how many plans have been hijacked?

I think the new scanners are absurd. I actually went through one in Las Vegas a few years ago, without being told the full extent of the scan until I was on the other side. I was invited to try it to bypass a long line at the traditional security check point.

My only question is why does this have to be a partisan issue? The original post 9/11 security upgrades were done by a GOP Congress and President. This is done by the opposite in both respects.

It seems to me that whichever party is in power, that party has an interest in scrutinizing people. I thought organizations like the Tea Party were designed to avoid partisan politics and fight the spread of political power.

Personally, I'd being willing to get on board with a fight against government intrusiveness, but since since you never complained about it under Bush, and since you mocked me when I pointed out this contradiction when you insulted Obama, I can't help but believe your concerns here have nothing to do with a random guy feeling up your junk, and more to do with your hatred of Obama.

Ryan

NewGnome said...

L: It is pointless trying to have cogent conversation with you. You refuse to respond to the issues I raise, attribute everything I say to hating Obama and unfailingly defend the policies of his administration. And, as in your post, you retreat to the "let's be non-partisan rationale" when you have not real defense of your position. And by the way this is not personal. Although I'm sure you'll interpret it that way. So, Post if you want, but I consider it a futile effort trying to discussing anything with you.

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

Rand:

I don't take anything personally except the accusation that its pointless to have a cogent conversation with me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's a personal attack.

1). I think people on both sides should be against the new scanners and pat downs.

2). George W. Bush did not institute these new pat downs, During his administration, however, the government encouraged and funded the development of this technology as I saw first hand in 2005 at the Las Vegas airport. This was before the Democratic take over in Congress. I would have been enraged then if I understood the full development of this project.

3). The TSA under the Obama administration and a democratic congress, implemented the use of the machines developed through funding by a GOP congress and executive administration.

4) Its plausible that if John McCain had been elected President he would have killed the funding for the development of these machines and not deployed them, as well as the intrusive pat downs. Its certainly possible that if he had won the election we wouldn't have these machines now. However, I was constantly told that Obama was weak on national security and McCain was strong on it. So I have trouble understanding why McCain would scale back the Bush initiatives.

5) I argued with you far before Obama was even a national figure, so no, I don't attribute everything you say to a hatred of Obama.

6) I know democrats and republicans (I know you consider me an extreme leftist, but I did just vote to re-elect Tom Coburn as OK Senator against the joke that he was running against) who are upset about this. It will not be solved if its only turned in to a "this is the [blank] party's fault."

Both parties have blame in this. Its not about who's in charge. I honestly believe that regardless of who won the election, we would have these machines - again I'll state that the entire right wing kept saying that Obama was too weak on national security. If this is what too weak means, then what would a strong candidate on national security have done?

7) My question for you is this: if you had gone through that scanner in Las Vegas, put in place by the Bush administration in 2005 (as I did), would you have responded the same way with a blog post to that as you are to it being done now by the Obama administration?

I suppose this was all non cognizant. But when you start out assuming that what you're reading is wrong, I suppose that everything is.

Ryan

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

Additionally, I'm not sure what issue you raised that I should respond to. The thesis of your post is primarily that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should be groped.

Secondarily, you are implying that HC and BO are trying to destroy America (which technically refers to two continents, not a country, so not sure what they're doing to screw over Brazil or Mexico). Is that an issue you raise. You don't really explain why or how. Should I respond to a 5 paragraph blog post that posits that thesis with a dissertation. To equal your level of development, I'd only have to say "HC and BO are not trying to destroy the United States of America. " Is that sufficient? What more detailed level of development is necessary to refute your proposition? The standard you have set leaves much to the imagination.

Ryan

NewGnome said...

And here I thought you were too busy with finals.

You have missed the point completely. The real question surrounding intrusive TSA groping is in my post, "The Attack of the Gropers" but true to Lonely form, you want to make it about yourself. That's why it's pointless from my perspective to discuss it with you.

But one last try! We are at war on American soil. PERIOD! We must find ways to defend ourselves and specifically our airplanes which were used as bombs by the Muslim terrorists. Detailed profiling is the most successful method to do this. As described in my "Gropers" post, I define the only three ways we can defend ourselves and all three violate the "unreasonable search" clause.

We can scan, which is an "eye" violation. We can grope, which is a "hand" violation or we can profile which is a brain violation. Since this is war, we have to discover the most reasonable approach to protect ourselves. Using naked scans and groping are the most intrusive and impact the most Americans. Profiling, has been proven by the Israelis to be effective, and it could be enhanced here.

So you, Lonely, are just finishing, (what, your second year in law school?) have to make the Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt decision. What is the most effective, least intrusive method to protect ourselves in a time of war on our soil? And you want to make a pathetic comment about the use of the word America.

When are you going to get out of your own little bubble and realize there are people who what to kill you because you are an American first, and Christian second. I'll be surprised if you do.

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

Okay.

The best answer is to use a profiling system, but just as the Israeli's used at Ben Gurion, this profiling system in no way should, or needs to be, racial. The former head of security at Ben Gurion, Rafi Ron, describes the Israeli profiling system in this interview:

http://www.hereandnow.org/2010/11/19/airport-security-thanksgiving-travel

As I understand Mr. Ron, the profiling system relies on looking at traits and characteristics of terrorists, as well as utilizing an intelligence network to identify suspected terrorists and force them to undergo additional screening before boarding the plane. It seems that the system we had in place pre 9/11 actually caused some of the 9/11 hijackers to undergo additionally screening; however, the screening was designed to prevent the carry on of bombs or weapons, not intended to stop people who were going to bum rush the cabin.

Now that we know the hijacking of airplanes is as dangerous-or more dangerous-than mid air explosions, perhaps this type of profiling should be used to flat out increase the no fly list and not allow any person suspected to board a plane that day.

If race is used as a component, it should be treated in the same way that the supreme court has authorized it to be used in school admissions criteria, as one factor.

The problem with using race is you never actually mention race in your arguments, you mention religion. "Muslim" is religion. White people can be Muslim. Muslim's can look the same as Israelis. Muslims can be black. A number of different racial groups (arab, persian, Indian, semitic, and different African groups). I'm just wondering where you draw the line? Do we create a national registry of religion? Do we stop everyone with brownish skin, regardless of whether they're Christian, Jewish or Muslim?

This is why I think Rafi Ron's description of the profiling process in the interview above is better than simple racial profiling I hear about so much on the news. This also provides the chance to catch non-Muslim terrorists, such as future Timothy McVeighs.

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

As far as the rest of it goes. Most law schools run on the standard calendar year for full time students, so I'm finishing my fifth semester out of six. At this point in school, many of the courses are skills or practice based and require written projects or simulated litigation instead of analytical finals. Of the finals I do have, one is Criminal Procedure, a 1/3 of which covers 4th Amendment Search and Seizure, and since you've aptly demonstrated such a comprehensive understanding of that subject in your last few posts, I feel like I'm pretty safe in there. Other than that, my other finals are all in regulatory law that the Tea Party wants to abolish, so since I keep hearing from people like you that American is going "back to its senses," I'm not putting too much effort into learning those since we're going to get rid of all of this "socialist" nonsense like ERISA, Transfer Taxes, and Anti-Trust law.

In all seriousness though, apart from any political point, I'm curious about this assumption so many people seem to be making about homosexuals. And I've heard it reiterated today with the reactions to the DADT report. Why do people assume that a gay man is going to get sexual enjoyment from contact with any and all men? or even be attracted to every man?

Not all straight men are attracted to all women. Why should all gay men be attracted to all men - straight or not? I'm sure you'd find it absurd or offensive if I suggested that you would enjoy groping any woman you saw. And you'd be right too, because, it's a ridiculous claim to make - regardless of whether applied to straights or gays.

When I was thinking about this earlier, I was sitting in a study area with a large group of people, including 6 twenty-something women. Out of those 6 I can honestly say I was attracted to three of them. I couldn't imagine deriving any pleasure from "groping" the other three in any context, let alone in a rubber gloved, public context. And even with the three that I found attractive, I think I would be so uncomfortable and morally repulsed about publicly feeling them up that I wouldn't get any sensual pleasure out of it even if they were the hottest person I'd ever seen.

Sure there are always exceptions, with both gender orientations. Do you think gay men would feel any different than the average straight man? What if he the TSA person was in a committed relationship? Do you think that someone would feel comfortable about doing that when they loved someone else?

Or do you just assume that a homosexual is some sort of deviant and comparing them to us is absurd?

As for your final comment. I consider myself Christian first, and American second. I'm pretty sure that'd be the way Jesus would want it. He defied the Jewish expectations of a political Messiah and instead of an Earthly Kingdom, established a Heavenly one. Since He asked His followers to place Him before their own families, I think His proper role is also before a country that wasn't even established until 1800 years following His sacrifice.

I also don't recall Him stating that I should fight or discriminate in His name. He told me to love my enemies, not to hate.

TheLonelyArtistClub said...

At the risk of being exhaustive, I want to quickly clarify the end of that last comment.

1. I am imperfect and I know I personally have failed to live by that declaration of my faith on many occasions.

2. I'm not claiming or suggesting that I am right and you or anyone else is therefore wrong.

3. You said that because I am a Christian in your comment, and I'm simply spelling out what being a Christian means for me. Not trying to insist that others agree with my interpretation of Christian faith.