Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 05:21 PM) How will you react when the guy with a colon loaded with HMX explodes and takes out 250 people? Serious question. so you'd agree that the next logical step is everyone gets cavity searches? (and i think there are means to detect explosives that don't require some dude in a backroom staring at naked people all day or forcing people to be groped, which, at the end of the day, still doesn't prevent the most determined of terrorists)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 04:45 PM) How do we prevent people from carrying dangerous non-metallic items onto planes? don't allow anyone to fly. Seriously though, absent full on cavity searches, how are you ever going to prevent that?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 04:33 PM) Didn't I ask you that earlier? I think me saying that body scans and pat down searches is over the line is your answer. What more do you want?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 03:59 PM) I don't see that in the constitution anywhere. There is no expectation or right to not consent to a cursory security search to board a privately owned aircraft. I fail to see where any amendment or article in the constitution would cover this. That's like saying you have the right to free speech so it should be ok to tell your boss to f*** off and expect no consequence. IMO, putting US Citizens on a No-Fly list restricting the right to travel freely within our borders is an awful lot closer to a constitutional violation than having to essentially get an X-Ray photo taken of you. So what's the line then? What if the TSA decides that due to recent terrorist chatter, they're now going to perform random body cavity searches. Too far? Or are we going to use this bulls*** "well there are other modes of travel" excuse? I seriously find it baffling that people are ok with this. A metal detector is one thing. But being fondled just to get on a stupid plane is another. And I don't buy this nonsense that it's just like an x-ray. First, it's not just like an xray, it's basically a naked picture of your body that you KNOW is going to be out there in public by some creepy perv. And second, an x-ray is PRIVATE, between you and your healthcare provider. There's a reason we protect the s*** out of our medical information, including x-rays, because it's PRIVATE information. If this was the ONLY option to protect us from the dips***s out there trying to blow us up, then fine. But it's not. So it shouldn't be tolerated.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:51 PM) Your argument against unreasonable search and seizure would apply to all security measures, such as screening your bags and metal detectors, not just back-scatter and pat-downs. Groping is not part of TSA guidelines or rules, though they can get awfully close. Good point, make it a violation of my privacy argument then. Clearly checking my bags and whatnot are not invading my...body.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:50 PM) You're clearly conflating issues here (whether it's legal and whether it's effective). I believe I have a right to not have my naked body scanned or physically searched in order to get on a plane. It goes too far. As an added bonus, it's also not effective.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:44 PM) There's a reasonable expectation of privacy when using a phone. "If you have nothing to hide" doesn't fly here imo, regardless of what Scalia says. This clearly does not apply in all cases, such as nuclear plants, military bases and federal buildings. Is an airport another reasonable exception, given past acts and future threat risks? You could be right, I don't know. This would go back to design basis threats and risk assessment. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy to not be groped and/or recorded naked as part of some bulls*** security measure?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:38 PM) There are other ways to travel beyond flight. I think that there's a reasonable argument to be made that this isn't "unreasonable" because its A) applied equally - even flight crew is subject to this and B) because there is no constitutional requirement to give you access to the sterile side of an airport. I don't really get this part of the argument. There is absolutely no way that airlines can be held liable for the actions of agents who are not employed with the airline or doing business with the airline. The only financial obligation would be the government's, not Delta, JetBlue or Southwest. These backscatter machines, in my opinion will probably detect more than a metal detector which does make them very useful IMO, and frankly given that the images resemble an X-ray more than porn, I don't really know why anyone is that concerned about suddenly masturbating TSA agents to begin with. I just hope that if they are saving these nudie pics of me when I fly that they'll finally put better lighting in the security area. Honestly, CFL's make me look fat. Is airline security a little over the top? Yeah. No need to take off shoes or the liquid limit, IMO, but this seems like a reasonable advance in technology and may actually make us a little safer, unlike most of the other security theatre things we have to go through when we fly. I'm saying the availability of some civil remedy as a deterrent for the TSA isn't going to matter. So fine, the government will mandate a new fee be collected to cover the costs. It's the same idea - we'll all pay, but it won't stop anything.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:30 PM) No one is making you fly. If you don't like it, there are tons of other modes of transportation out there available. "No one is making you use a phone. If you don't like the NSA tapping it, there are tons of other modes of communication available." Seriously, if this is our thinking these days, the terrorists have absolutely won.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:19 PM) The systems weren't supposed to save images. Are they actually doing so? Anyway, it's not like that would stop a person who wanted to save them. Just sit in the room and pull out your cell phone camera. The only thing that will genuinely stop employees from doing so is a combination of penalties and checks of the type of people who get in there. Criminal penalties might. Of course, people will still do so. The illegal immigrant thing is of course a bogus comparison, and frankly you ought to know better. You give up various levels of your constitutional rights all the time. Every time you set foot outside your door, you've given up some measure of your rights. If you set foot into a building that you don't own, you give up more of your rights. Check out my "oops" link. It was a courthouse body scanner, but they weren't supposed to save the images either. I have about a .001% faith that the TSA will be different. And you ought to know that you don't simply give up your basic constitutional rights simply because you want to travel by air. Last time I checked a stewardess couldn't deny all blacks from flying on their plane. It's the same idea. You have a constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. As it is, they are assuming everyone is a terrorist with a bomb with no probable cause. That's unconstitutional whether you're in your car on the road or whether you're about to board a plane.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 02:07 PM) Ok, here's my general comment. The TSA is fully within its rights to do whatever the Hell it wants here...because there is no constitutional right to get on a plane. You have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, but the key is the "unreasonable" part...since there's no guarantee of a right to get on a plane, there is no such thing as an unreasonable search in that case. However...this is obviously messy for the TSA and it's messy in a silly way...because, just like so many other "safeguards", it is more security theater than anything else. Convincing a person dedicated to blowing up a plane that they need to put a bomb in their underwear or frankly, shoved up their colon isn't the hard part; it's convincing them to blow up the plane in the first place. If these scanners were fool-proof, sure, but they're clearly not, they're just a small, additional level of difficulty that a determined terrorist could bypass with a little bit of effort. The reality is...the TSA needs to be very careful here, because frankly, I think we all know it's only a matter of time before the images acquired here are smuggled out, and every time it happens it ought to be a multi-million dollar lawsuit. (1) Since when does having a right to be somewhere suddenly cut off your constitutional protections? Pretty sure illegal immigrants are afforded the protections of the Constitution despite not having the right to be here. (2) There will be lawsuits and people will win and society gets to continue picking up yet another tab that doesn't need to be paid. Multi-million dollar lawsuits just means the airlines get to tack on an extra 2 dollar government fee to sit in a fund for those lawsuits. It won't stop employees from doing it, just like criminal threats won't either. There's absolutely no need for these scanners, and there's even less of a need to save the pictures afterwards.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 01:48 PM) You obviously don't have a 15 year old daughter. Having some creepy ass TSA agent that probably only has a GED staring at images of my nude daughter is unsettling. I'm literally shocked that more people aren't concerned with this. It's already happen, despite the TSA promising it wouldn't. It's not even fully functional yet in all airports and there are already multiple reports. Again, cavity searches are next. Be prepared.

Is this being discussed somewhere else? Pretty hot topic around the major media outlets. First the body scanners that won't store your picture (oops), and now this I'm surprised there's not more of an outrage on this board. Next step, body cavity searches? I think the terrorists have won this one.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 10:53 AM) Met Tommy Hamilton and Jabari Parker Friday night. They were at an event my company helped execute. Didn't want to ask them about recruiting. But Jabari is a really really nice guy. Hamilton less talkative, but a big dude. And saw the Whitney Young freshmen, including Jahlil Okafor who is going to be a five-star. Dude is so tall too. I have never seen a team with as much talent as Whitney Young. They have three five-star caliber freshmen/sophomore (Hamilton, Okafor and Paul Turner) who are all 6'7" or bigger. Just not fair. Since 2012 is gonna suck for UI recruiting, those two in 2013 could be huge. All indications are that Weber and company are recruiting full steam ahead and appear to be in great shape with both guys. I think the success of this year and next will go a long way in their recruitment. Edit: I guess Illinois is also in the Harris hunt. Have no idea if they're a contender though.

Senator Rangel walks out of his own trial. Pretty hilarious. "What?! I'm on trial?! I need a lawyer!" http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45134.html

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 03:34 PM) When you compare Thing 1 that's considered really good to another, similar Thing 2 and point out that it's lacking both important parts Thing 1 has, it's not a favorable review. Perhaps you missed the last 1/4 of the review, as well, where he claims Bush's presidency was a turning point and that history will judge him much more harshly than he judges himself. Which, again, is one of the two crucial points that Grant had but Bush lacked--honest self-assessment and reflection. I'll admit that a review that describes the book as falling far short of what's considered good in the genre and ends with condemnation of the author led me to describe it as mediocre. Also at mediocre is basically hate "Falling far short of what's considered good in the genre" - you mean not being equal with the "finest" memoir of a President? Pretty tall order there don't you think? And I said your immediate dismissal of the book was basically a reflection of your hatred for Bush. Given your prior posts about Bush or anything he's done, I'll stand by that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 03:18 PM) He described why Grant's writings are considered good with two main points, and then he says Bush's book differs in both regards. You're quote-mining here, and removing the bit of text that puts what you quoted into context, where the reviewer criticizes Bush's lack of addressing any larger mistakes or some of the major issues during his presidency. The review wasn't an attack on Bush, but you're certainly reading it that way. It was a review of a book, and in comparison with the highly-regarded works in the same category, it falls short. That doesn't make it bad, just pretty mediocre. Nothing special. But, apparently, that's BLIND RAVENOUS HATRED! Yeah whatever. You're taking him saying that it doesn't compare to one other memoir (not "works") as him saying it's mediocre. Point out something else he says in there that would lead you to conclude that. He doesn't. It's a pretty neutral review. I read it as him saying "I wish he would have talked more about his personal life." But again, as if him writing 4 paragraphs about how God talks to him would change your opinion on him or the decisions he made. Just admit your bias towards him led you to conclude it was just a mediocre book, despite the fact that the review you base that opinion on doesn't say anything like that. That's what I'm getting at. "Hate" might be a strong word, but that's basically what it is.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 02:42 PM) If Bush admits no mistakes in his memoirs, anyone who calls him on it wants to have him apologize for ruining the world? The only person in this thread bringing the hate-hate-hate or the bias to this discussion appears to be you. He's a former President and a human being in a very, very, very difficult job - he made mistakes, lots of them. He doesn't have to admit to them, but if he doesn't, he's rightfully going to get called out for it. Your repeated straw man doesn't even vaguely match the reality of any of the posters talking about the book. Did you read the review? He says he admitted mistakes. He didn't admit THE mistakes the author (and presumably strangesox since he said it was just an apologia) wanted him to admit. My mistake was arguing this too early. I'm sure given another day or two others would have chimed in to say how awful the book was (without actually reading it of course). From the tone of the initial posts - that he didn't write every word himself and that it was "mediocre" based on a review that said nothing of the sort - I sensed the same blind hate that's been going on for the better part of the decade.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 02:39 PM) No, not like you said. Did you miss why he brings that up? The comparison to Grant? I also didn't directly attribute the word mediocre to the reviewer, but that is certainly the message I took away from his review. Just re-read his first two paragraphs. Explains why Grant is considered so good, and then says Bush's differs on both critical points. I guess I don't see it. He says it's not as good as Grant's. Ok fine. He's basically saying he didn't include enough information about his personal life but isntead focuses on his years as President (as if that would make it better to someone who doesn't like him already). He also says "As a justification for his actions, Bush's memoir succeeds admirably. The former president revisits nearly all the controversial decisions of his tenure, and defends them with vigor."

Where does he say it's "very mediocre overall?" His complaint is that it's not an expose of who he is personally, but that he just discusses his 8 years in office. Well, that makes sense since the book is called "Decision Points," you know, the decisions he made while in office. Also, I love this: Just like I said - "well, he didn't apologize for ruining the world, so....meh."

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 01:48 PM) Not to pile on, but Miami is usch a bad basketball town that they are trying to TEACH fans how to be fan: Fan Up, Miami wow. that is pathetic.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 01:51 PM) So why am I ridiculous, as you put it, or pathetic, as cknolls said, for saying it's a mediocre book that doesn't offer much insight, just defenses for his policies? Because you haven't read it, so how would you know? Your clear (ridiculous) bias just extends to anything he does/will do. And honestly what did you expect? Did you really expect him to write a book that said "i'll bow to my haters and just apologize profusely for everything I ever did."

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 01:43 PM) Ridiculius about what, exactly? Reviews I've seen even in conservative circles are that the book is pretty shallow and lame. I don't think this is a party bias thing. the book? Have you even read it yet? It's just hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate. Bush could cure cancer and there would be a negative about it ("oh, well he had HELP. He didn't do it himself! Also, he destroyed the world. FACT." A guy that doesn't write his memoir word for word? That NEVER happens. I'm not even a Bush supporter, but GMAB.

Jesus, you guys are ridiculous.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 12, 2010 -> 09:56 AM) My Lord, this guy could not be further from Michael Jordan. You know too that if he played only 38-39 minutes he'd be b****ing that they lost because he didn't play enough.