TSA Has 95-Year-Old Remove Her Diaper For Screening 582
wjcofkc writes "The Transportation Security Administration stood by its security officers Sunday after a Florida woman complained that her cancer-stricken, 95-year-old mother was patted down and forced to remove her adult diaper while going through security. 'While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner,' the federal agency said. 'We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.'"
PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Funny)
Well, ya know, she might be trying to knit an Afghan. *rimshot*
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine knitting an Afghan would look something like this [thisblogrules.com].
Re:TSA has just FUCKED with the WRONG GROUP (Score:4, Funny)
Well, of course they do. Most of them are in AARP.
Re:PROFILED (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:PROFILED (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives, precisely because security is sometimes lowered for obviously innocent types. Not to say I appreciate the security bloatfest of the past decade, absolutely not... but being old or disabled is not a "get out of security checkpoints free" card and never should be. Can't respond on the individual case, I wasn't there.
Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)
And to that I say... 'so?'
People die every day, and in the US it's more likely to be from bee stings than terrorist activity.
Yet we've determined to spend billions to make that a zero percentage. What about those terrorist bees!?
Re: (Score:2)
I think Wanted takes the trophy for terrorist animals. Not bees as such, rats, but they do a whole lot more damage too...
Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
We shouldn't be granting exceptions we should be scrapping the program entirely. 9/11 would not have succeeded had the airline industry not been so cheap as to not pay for the kind of reinforced doors that had been in place in planes flown in other parts of the world. Additionally, had we not banned knives on planes, it's unlikely that the plot would have succeeded either as the terrorists would have been outnumbered.
It's astonishing to me how many people think that another 9/11 style kamikaze jet liner attack could happen that way given the awareness that the hijacker hostage deal has changed and that being quiet no longer guarantees that the situation ends in the inconvenience of being flown to Libya or Cuba. At this point, they're going to just bomb the security check points like they do in other parts of the world, much easier to succeed doing that and definitely enough bloodshed to keep people terrorized for years to come.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bees also don't billions in economic damage.
A single blown-up airplane would cause many people to cancel their flights, causing a lot of damage to the flight and travel industries. It would also scare the populace. A scared populace is less likely to spend money on anything. If the people aren't willing to spend money, then investors likewise will be tighter with their purse strings. The general populace and investors not spending money is bad for the economy.
The security theater is about money and little e
Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)
The security theater is all about control. Do you think for one second that the administration could have gotten away clean with wireless wiretapping if not for the security theater drumbeats and foolish sycophants claiming they are doing a great job protecting us? We (the US citizenry) are being slowly inundated into total surveillance, control, and servitude by the minions of the government who just can't get enough of that security theater.
Re:PROFILED (Score:4, Insightful)
I only have six points left so I think I'll respond (even though I wouldn't have moderated your comment either way and left it at 1).
This is indeed a religious war. The US is fighting to protect its national religion -- the worship of money. Most "Christians" would probably denounce God and Christ if you offered them a hundred million bucks to do so, despite the fact that that's the worst sin a Christian could possibly commit (worse than mass murder). Most money worshiping Christians don't even realize that they love money more than they love Jesus.
Hypocrites. How many of these so-called "Christians" call for the death penalty, when the man they call their lord and savior said to love those that hate you, do good to those who harm you, and forgive your enemies? No wonder there are so many athiests, considering how hypocritical most "religious" people are (that includes Muslims and Jews as well as Christians).
The TSA is about instilling fear among the populace so the government can take away what few rights you still have. It should never have been started, and neither should DHS have been. Homeland security should be the military's job. If there is a TSA their job should be to make sure our deteriorating bridges don't collapse and the airliners don't have mechanical defects or drunken pilots.
Re:PROFILED (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with you that there are many individuals who call themselves Christian that are not in the US, I would challenge some of your examples. I'm not sure why you brought the death penalty thing in to the discussion, but I do not believe it to be inconsistent. Jesus' teachings were fairly clear that there was a difference between personal justice and governance. If someone was to murder my loved ones, I would forgive them, but unless they were to be repentant of what they did, I would not want th
Re: (Score:3)
I understand what you are saying and I agree about the point of loving our enemies. I didn't fully complete the logic, but my full logic of it is that we are not the judge of our enemies because we are not any better and have no grounds to judge them. That said, God also established governments [Rom. 13:1; Prov. 8:15,16] and gave authority to the leaders of governments beyond what individuals have. Jesus said nothing to lead me to believe that this had changed under the new testament. He in fact kind of
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm not painting Christians with a broad brush -- I am one myself. I'm not perfect, far from it, but I don't scream "hang him" as so many do. The ones who bomb abortion clinics and call for the death penalty give the rest of us a bad name. So do the ones who go to church on Sunday and evict an out of work family on Monday. There are far too many of them, and not nearly enough of us.
The worst, I think, are the "gay bashers", especially the ones (some you alluded to in your comment) who later turn out to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, I miss the days when the pilots would sometimes just leave the door open, and I'm a pretty young guy. It weirds me out whenever I get on a bus service that has the driver behind a plexiglass cage. I won't say the cockpit door isn't a reasonable security measure, but the bus thing is asinine.
I don't think box cutters were ever a credible threat. The thing we had all learned is that unless John McClane is involved, you'll be a few days late getting home and see another country should your plane get hija
Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)
Boxcutters are only a credible threat in a population of thoroughly cowed citizens. A nation that teaches children that "it is never right to fight" can expect their children to grow into pansies who are bullied by anyone, and everyone who grows up fighting.
Boxcutters. Yes, of course, in the hands of a trained killer, ANYTHING will become a weapon. But, that boxcutter is simply not a weapon of choice among killers, because it's so easy to defend against. Presuming, of course, that the target has a mindset which permits him to think in terms of defense and offense.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, not really.
If the passengers on the planes had known that the hijackers were suicidal and were going to kill them all, they would have acted.
In fact, we know this is true because besides the planes that hit the Twin Towers and the plane that missed the Pentagon, a fourth plane was hijacked; the passengers on that plane had news of what happened to the other three planes, and knew that the terrorists were going to kill them all. It ended up crashing in the middle of Pennsylvania after the passengers at
Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
We shouldn't be granting exceptions we should be scrapping the program entirely. 9/11 would not have succeeded had the airline industry not been so cheap as to not pay for the kind of reinforced doors that had been in place in planes flown in other parts of the world. Additionally, had we not banned knives on planes, it's unlikely that the plot would have succeeded either as the terrorists would have been outnumbered.
It's simpler than that. 9/11 succeeded more due to the mindset at the time than anything that wasn't allowed on planes. Ten years ago, the standard operating procedure for a hijacking was to give in and deal with it on the ground. The 9/11 attackers went after the flaw in this plan, which assumed the hijackers weren't suicidal. Today, even if we didn't have reinforced doors and still banned knives on planes, any would be hijackers with box cutters wouldn't make it two steps up the aisle before half the passengers would take them down.
Re: (Score:3)
Beaten up for scaring the shit out of everybody on a plane.
FTFY.
Want to live? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't diss bees. They work very hard and then we steal their honey. Also, they don't sting unless they are in mortal peril, or if their hive is threatened. Bees are very docile. Appreciate them, they deserve it.
Obligatory car analogy: people die in car crashes every day. Most of them could have easily been avoided. We don't try to do that, because we feel we have the right to behave how we want in our car. Freedom and all that. Drunk drivers think it is ok to drive when intoxicated, even if they are told it has a higher risk. We still use our mobile phone in the car, even if study after study proves it is rather dangerous. Some cars aren't really fit to be on the road, but does that stop us?
But somehow we feel we should have our genitals groped on the off chance there might be a non-savoury passenger aboard. Even when the drive to the airport is several orders of magnitude more dangerous.
We are a stupid lot, really.
Re: (Score:3)
First things first. Congrats on the +5 for the "I like to lick butts!" comment. That should be a special /. achievement. Kudos.
On to the discussion...
The car crashes DO equal the damage done by 9/11. Add up the unemployment, lost hours due to non-fatal injuries, grief time, having to now deal with single-parent issues, etc. and you'll find that it more than matches the loss of productivity triggered by 9/11.
Then take into account the fact that the car issues happen every day, and every year for the last 60
Re: (Score:2)
People do not like the reality that all this "security" has no benefit. Were already allowing the things that were used to hijack planes on-board (razors and lighters/matches classic jail house weapon and they can not stop them there either). Security was improved the moment that the passengers figured out it was in there own interest to stop the terrorists and not wait to be rescued. Governments hate an empowered populace it reduces there control.
Want to stop terrorism, eradicate the potential threat, i
Oh yeah... That'll work... (Score:2)
Give repercussions to people willing to kill themselves for there cause, group punishments again rather nasty business to punish the people that the terrorists cared for.
Just like it worked for Germans in every country they occupied during the WWII.
Killing civilians also does wonders for the morale of "our boys" out there.
In fact, why even bother with recruiting and training anymore?
Simply scour the prisons for rapists, murderers and other sociopaths, give them guns and flamethrowers and parachute them into civilian settlements.
That should fix that pesky terrorist problem by Christmas or so. What could possibly go wrong, right?
Re: (Score:2)
<advocacy=devil>Bees provide a service necessary to life as we love it. What service do terrorists provide?</advocacy>
Re: (Score:3)
I'd work on their campaign is what I'd do.
Being a politician *should* mean having to make the hard decisions people will hate you for in the name of a strong union. We used to have diplomats. Now we have politicorporations. John Adams killed his shot at a 2nd term by not going to war with France (XYZ Affair). Now we call those with anti-war views in bed with Saddam Qadaffi. How far we've fallen...
Re: (Score:2)
Armed criminals often conceal weapons under clothing, precisely because their weapons would otherwise be obvious.
Clearly the only way we could ever feel safe enough to walk down the street is to outlaw all clothing. Makes sense to me. Do you see a flaw in this thinking?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you see a flaw in this thinking?
Every time I look in the mirror, pal!
Re: (Score:3)
Armed criminals often conceal weapons under clothing, precisely because their weapons would otherwise be obvious.
Clearly the only way we could ever feel safe enough to walk down the street is to outlaw all clothing. Makes sense to me. Do you see a flaw in this thinking?
I see a flaw, anyone with a concealed weapons permit would have to insert the weapon into an orifice.. If all guns are inserted in to assholes, only assholes will have guns.
Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)
Your basis for this is that airplanes are falling out of the sky like hail from children rigged to explode? or that the TSA catches all kinds of children wired to blow? Or, are you a coward living in fear, willing to give up your rights to not be molested and humiliated by TSA who have never, ever caught a terrorist?
Re: (Score:2)
A lot has been said in reply to your post, but one word in one post sums it ip nicely:
So
Re: (Score:2)
Am I suffering from selective memory here or are these just impotent attemp
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives, precisely because security is sometimes lowered for obviously innocent types.
Can you cite one example of the TSA catching a child being used by terrorists? One old woman? Hell, How many Muslims extremist with evidence of terrorist intentions have been caught by the TSA?
What is the TSA actually accomplishing, aside from trying to justify the loss of our privacy, convenience, and freedom in exchange for false security?
Are the terrorists, who are willing to die in order to cause mayhem and terror, suddenly afraid they might get caught?
The threat of terrorism is wasting our money and
Re: (Score:2)
The profile of an intelligent, dangerous, hidden sleeper terrorist waiting for a long time for a chance, using her age as a disguise.
Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Informative)
Clearly she fits the terrorist criminal profile.
Terrorists aren't complete morons.
A white, pregnant Catholic Irishwoman doesn't fit the terrorist profile either.
And yet, there was a bomb in her luggage, placed by her Jordanian fiancee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair [wikipedia.org]
Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)
So you saying someone would hide a bomb in this woman's DIAPER without her knowing it? :)
Someone could have WITH her knowing it (Score:2)
works both ways.
My mom has a perfect method to get pulled aside each time, bring a dog in a carrier.
Her insulin needles and pump don't even phase security, but bring a cute dog, and its off to the races.
Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Interesting)
Terrorists aren't complete morons.
This is true. Which is why TSA has never caught one.
Perhaps we should re-think this whole airport security thing.
Re: (Score:2)
And it got a Wikipedia page called the "Hindawi Affair". Hmm a few nights ago someone had a car crash, I wonder what the wikipedia page for that car crash is called..... oh right.... they only do that for events that are incredibly rare. So rare as to... not be worth talking about. Seriously, if this is what airport security is supposed to protect us from, then we can fire them all....totally unneeded.
Re: (Score:3)
If they were [allowed to use] profiling we wouldn't have these sad incidents.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah you'd have planes blown up my non-brown people instead.
Well, OK, so terrorists very rarely try to get bombs on planes, and if they did, the passengers would probably stop them from setting it off, but you'd be creating a huge vulnerability by focusing on a certain profile. Same reason security software doesn't only scan files handled by Java, Flash, IE and Autorun.
Re: (Score:2)
You're preaching to the choir, but there has to be a balance and trade-off in there somewhere. It's very much like security on business networks. There are always "more secure ways" but we reject them because they represent too much complication and too much inconvenience. All the warm-fuzzies generated by a feeling of being secure is over-ridden by dank-nasties of annoying inconveniences. And that's pretty much what we are seeing here.
However, if there were profiling, there would still be a high percen
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the false-positive and good catch rates would quickly reverse themselves. Terrorists would soon get recruits that don't match the high-security profile, reducing the number picked up by the profile. The overall false positive rate might be lower in this case since the group you're profiling is relatively small, but the false negative rate would definitely increase as the low-security profile is exploited.
And none of this touches on the social issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Israel, at least on paper, uses behavioral profiling and a short interview process. Still flawed in theory but in practice it's harder to defeat.
Could've been worse (Score:5, Insightful)
At least they didn't break a colostomy bag seal.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/TSA_chief_apologizes_to_traveler_with_ostomy-109990494.html [nbclosangeles.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Woops, urostomy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well...it did have liquid in it!
I think the TSA agents should be required to personally inspect the contents of EVERY such bag!
Independent review needed (Score:5, Informative)
I love how the TSA says that they reviewed the case and gave a pass to their own people. IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this. That aside, I think the woman should have put a plastic turd in there just to piss them off (you know, because a real one would be gross).
Re: (Score:2)
I love how the TSA says that they reviewed the case and gave a pass to their own people. IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this. That aside, I think the woman should have put a plastic turd in there just to piss them off (you know, because a real one would be gross).
There were actually real turds in her diaper. That is why the TSA clerks wanted her to change it in the first place. I guess even though they don't mind feeling up everyone walking through the line they do mind poo.
Re:Independent review needed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Independent review needed (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this.
In my opinion, the TSA needs to be eliminated completely. They don't appear to be doing much good, violate peoples' privacy, and even if they capture a few 'terrorists', I don't believe that forcing innocent people to be searched is worth it (especially considering the low chances of terrorist attacks in the first place). More security on the planes themselves (such as reinforced doors) is better, in my opinion.
When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically... (Score:2)
...from who are the TSA protecting me when they scan me or pat me down?
Re: (Score:3)
According to them, these processes are preventative measures to keep somebody from smuggling a weapon onto the plane, thereby allegedly protecting *all* of the passengers, even though you are definitely correct in pointing out that what is done to any given individual does not protect them at all, personally... the TSA's response would likely be that putting you personally through such processes protects others... and putting others through it, in turn, protects you individually.
Of course, the above shou
Re: (Score:2)
Since the formation of the TSA, every attempted terrorist attack has been stopped by passengers or intelligence agencies. The TSA fails at here job 100% of the time. They talk about all the weapons they have confiscated..Mostly pocketknives and an ocassioal handgun forgotten about in a bag. The guns would have been found by the old system and the pocket knifed don't matter anymore.
I am sure theynare counting globes too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, and thanks to them, they got to pull off a one time only ever event. Plane hijackings stopped becoming a legitimate terrorist tool as soon as the first tower was hit. (Who came out of 9/11 as the biggest heroes? United 93.)
The fact is terrorists are NOT stupid. They know they can't pull this off again, but they're having a hell of a time laughing at us pissing ourselves to soaking levels every time someone drops a penny at a security line.
Your pussy nature has let them win, exactly what you think you're trying to prevent.
It'd be funny if it wasn't so damn depressing.
Re:When I'm a U.S. citizen traveling domestically. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that 3000 people were killed on 9/11, ten years ago is not justification for every single action which has the label "anti-terrorism" attached to it.
In the US around 35,000 people are killed every single year as a result of road fatalities. If the same paranoia were applied to this much larger figure, speed limits would be e.g. radically cut and there would be mandatory alcohol and drugs testing before each road journey.
There's a balance to be made between risk and liberty/inconvenience. And the one that is currently being made in air transport security is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US around 35,000 people are killed every single year as a result of road fatalities. If the same paranoia were applied to this much larger figure, speed limits would be e.g. radically cut and there would be mandatory alcohol and drugs testing before each road journey.
I blame you when the paranoid 80% passes a law for this. asshole
According to some sources ... (Score:3)
According to some sources, they didn't find no shit
Other sources say ... (Score:5, Funny)
Other sources say they found some shit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bin Laden must be rolling over in his grave. (Score:2)
"Roigl" is probably the acronym.
Couldn't care less (Score:5, Interesting)
I can simulate the air travel experience in my own room by pushing my desk chair all the way up to my desk, putting a couple of boxes in front of my legs, and watching DVDs from 8 years ago on repeat. For that added authentic experience, i'll invite two fat sweaty nerds to sit either side of me and flick peanuts at each other. The icing on the cake really is the 45 year old balding rent-a-cop sexually assaulting me at my bedroom door.
Seriously. Never going to America again.
Re:Couldn't care less (Score:5, Informative)
I'm with you.
I've never been to the US, I'd love to see the place, but this whole flying nonsense is keeping me away from it. Having go through a watered-down version that's in place in the rest of the world (though EU is following the US closely) is bad enough. No interest to visit the source of that.
It's a pity, really, that it has to be like that.
Re:Couldn't care less (Score:4, Insightful)
Because as the US moves to a service/IP economy, you'll depend more on foreign business and tourism (hah, good luck). Making travel a giant PITA will hurt those things.
Re:Couldn't care less (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Because America receives lots of income from tourism, and the more people like him who choose to vacation elsewhere, the more our economy suffers, and
3) Did I mention that he's right?
I, too, have decided not to fly anywhere in the U.S. anymore due to the nonsense at the airports, and I am a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. Worse than that, I live in Alaska, so if I want to go anywhere, flying is pretty much my only choice. It would take up most of my vacation just trying to get through Canada to go anywhere else. But I REFUSE to subject myself or my family to TSA. I hope more people make the same choice, because once the airlines start to feel the pinch, maybe they can generate enough leverage to get the policies to change.
Rose by any other name (Score:4, Insightful)
Why did they let her on the plane at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people seem to miss this simple point through, I guess, conditioning.
By letting the old lady get on the plane, they admit that they are extremely confident that she is NOT a terrorist and whatever was in her pants is completely harmless. Otherwise they would never let her on the plane. And this goes for all the people who have their play-doh, baby bottles, cheese, etc confiscated. If TSA had even a small reason to believe those things were actual explosives, you would not be flying that day, no fucking way. I mean, what do they do with the supposed possible-explosives they confiscate? If they are possibly explosives, shouldn't they put them in some explosion-safe location and have a bomb expert examine them to determine the danger? They don't do any of that, because they known goddam well that the baby bottles and cheese they confiscate is perfectly harmless. They just confiscate it anyway, because they are thugs and they can.
If I try to get on a plane and they honest-to-god find explosives on me, and honest-to-god think that I'm going to blow up the fucking plane, do they just let me leave the line, dispose of my explosives, and then get back on the plane? Of course not. They would never do that. Honestly, I don't know what they would do--I don't think they would know what to do with a real bomb or a terrorist if they actually caught one--but they would probably shut the whole terminal down, call the bomb squad, and arrest me. The fact that they do none of those things when the confiscate my cheese is proof that they know I'm harmless, but they steal my shit anyway. In this case, they knew that this old lady was harmless--you know this--but they just bullied her anyway, because they are thugs and they can.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
People who were just following orders have caused more damage to the world than any other group.
It's obvious why they did it (Score:4, Funny)
They were afraid she'd do a boom-boom.
From the TSA's point of view (Score:2)
"You don't like it when we check an infant's diaper, you don't like it when we check a 95 year old's diaper. Well, smartarse American public, who's diaper can we check?
"Wait...why are we checking diapers again?"
Glad I'm not that TSA agent (Score:2)
They need to screen Janet Napolitano . . . (Score:2)
tsa funding needs to be slashed (Score:3)
George Orwell was an optimist. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I read 1984 as a youngster I was shocked at the telescreen, the minutes of hate, the ever-shifting language and designated terrorists, and the frightful Room 101 ways of dealing with questionable comrades.
At some point with water-boarding, elimination of due process and habeas corpus for designated humans and spying without warrants, we have now fulfilled Orwell's nightmare of a despotic totalitarian system of politic and thought. And we aspire to further degradation of the human spirit.
Shark Attack Journalism (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certainly glad I got an education... I wouldn't like to handle adult diapers for a living.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, every month people die in car accidents to equal about another 9/11.
Clearly our priorities should be stopping an event less likely than a shark attack rather than...bah, whatever, enjoy your security theater...
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up or they'll require screenings to go into the subway. I'm just waiting for them to realize what a terrorist target those security check points are. I'm guessing that rather than do something sane about it that the result will be a security check point before getting into the security line...
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up or they'll require screenings to go into the subway. I'm just waiting for them to realize what a terrorist target those security check points are.
s/terrorist target/cash cow [alternet.org]/
This is why transparency is so critical to freedom. It's critical that we know who is profiting, because one of the major benefits of capitalism is being able to follow the money to find out who's fucking who.
wow. consent. (Score:2)
Bull fucking shit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How about the government goes back to respecting the spirit of the 4th Amendment? You don't have th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:TSA is crazy. (Score:4, Insightful)
keeping it close to your body where it absorbs in through the skin has been suspected as the cause for skin and nervous system issues over the past ~20 years.
So why doesn't everyone have kidney and bladder cancer? those organs are in continual, unending contact with urea. or do you believe that skin is the only porous human body tissue?
It's no coincidence that when some chiropractors work on infants (I refuse those under ~3, allowing their spines time to set), they notice that diaper rash is almost a guarantee of spinal and nerve issues. Without thinking, the parents are filling their precious child's system full of urea and other toxins.
Actually,parts of the skeletal structure are still in development well into puberty (e.g. cranial sutures). By recommending spinal manipulating >3yrs, you're recommending potentially maiming a person that you think has a completely "set" spine. this is not based on any science nor reasonable health practitioner's recommendation; in fact, you'd have trouble finding any medical doctor (not chiropractor) to state that diaper rash is a nervous issue. to treat diaper rash, look for horses, not zebras. and keep 3yr olds out of the chiropractor's office!
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any way you can refuse him treatment based on his beliefs and allow him to try to treat himself with his own bullshit?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone who thinks this is absurd has implicitly argued that profiling -- racial, gender, and otherwise -- works.
This is true, but profiling doesn't work. Profiling actually adds a vulnerability to a security system - a big gaping one, all you have to do is not match the profile to get Security Lite.
I'm not upset that an old white lady was treated in a way that nobody would bat an eye at if she were middle eastern and wearing a burkha. I'm upset at how ridiculously over-the-top and intrusive the TSA's procedures have become.
Re:This is why profiling works. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is absurd to pat-down or scan ANYONE boarding a flight. A bomb carried on a person in such a way that it would be detected by this screening is entirely incapable of bringing down an air-plane. It could kill people but that would probably work better in the security line then when seated in an aircraft.
And yes profiling works (to a degree). The problem is that by profiling you alienate that group from society and from law enforcement. It has been proven time and again that the only way to stop ethnic crime is by the police forging strong ties with the community.
hear ye, hear ye - it happened (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if there was an airine that let me get on, buy a ticket for cash with no id, and had no security checkpoint....I would choose to fly it every single time.
The real truth is, you can have all the screening you want, the terrorist chooses his target. Your BEST CASE SCENARIO is he moves on and attacks a school or subway instead. In truth, you probably have no chance in hell of actually stopping every terrorist who tries to get a plane.
Even if you could, he could just.... blow up the checkpoint....or t
Re: (Score:2)