Airport security : Issues on pat downs and the OL dreaded scanner.

Here is just one more thing for people to gripe about. Airports have put in scanners and people are having a huge issue with this. The main concern for most of them are when a person goes through a scanner it is apparently very revealing. These new scanners can pear through your clothing, and I do understand that because of this people would have an issue with others seeing there ummm, goods.

I would prefer that not everyone see what my pony keg looks like but, I would much rather go through a bit of humiliation than to be miles high and blow to shreds because someone has stuffed a bomb in their underwear. Much like what happened last Christmas when a Nigerian tried to smuggle explosives onto the plane in Chicago.

I’m not really sure how the scanner is placed or if there are any walls covering the screen but, it wouldn’t be a bad idea. At least this way you would have some sense of privacy.

Another issue is how the TSA agents are handling pat downs. One major incident that happened at the beginning of Nov.2010 was when a gentleman who was flying out for the holidays went through the scanner and the agents told him he would have to go through a pat down because they seen something under his shirt. The man did don’t have an issue with this and explained to the agents that what they saw was a urostomy bag. After explaining what it was and his medical background they took him in to a private room as requested by the passenger and one of the agents conducted the pat down with aggression and dislodged the cap from the urostomy bag. The passenger had to endure the flight sitting in his urine soaked cloths because he had no time to change. Not only did he have to face the long flight but, he had to appear in this manner in front of other passengers. It brought him to tears. Now I don’t know about you but, this pisses me OFF! I blame the TSA chief for this. I don’t think these agents have been properly trained. Some people who travel do have medical conditions and these agents need to know how to handle certain medical conditions. It’s become more than just an issue of security. Medical needs have to be met as well.

They need to understand, if they are going to buy all of these big fancy new toys and implement all of these new regulations then they need to educate their people in proper procedures. In other words, no more rent- a -cops.

response to a classmates blog

This post is in response to a class mate’s blog. The subject is Why Gun Bans Still Don't Work.

I have to completely agree with her critique. It would have been great if these laws had kept criminals from carrying guns but, of course this isn’t the case. If a law abiding citizen carries a gun legally then we have to assume that they have gone through the proper training in order to obtain a license to carry. Therefore, we should have not much of a reason to worry about a person using them inappropriately as the article stated.

Did you know that guns are banned in DC.. and it has some of the highest rates of gun violence in the nation. Does this tell you anything?

As my classmate states…If more law abiding citizens were to carry guns, I think a criminal would have second thoughts about pulling out there’s. It seems to me that a criminal has more rights, rights as in” lesser punishment” to carry an illegal gun than a  “law abiding citizens” has to carry a legal gun.

In other words  if I step over a fence as a hunter with a loaded gun and a game warden sees me, I can lose my gun, my car and my boat and pay a large fine. If I am a gang banger in the city caught with a handgun in my car, I'll probably get 6 months probation maximum. The solution: when a cop catches a gang banger with a gun in his car, they should call the game warden.

The governments argument for deploying troops in the U.S.

I read this Blog that argues the deployment of troops In the U.S. Although, this is a post from 08’ I found it for the most part  to be ridiculous! But, I do have to say some of what they said does raise an eyebrow.  Ive heard this rumor before. Was the 9/11 attack an attack by our own Government to provoke a war in Iraqu?

I don’t think so. Although I do have my own issues with our government I don’t believe that they would kill hundreds of innocent U.S. citizens  just so they could go to war. They already had plenty of excuses to do so.

But, like I said this blog did raise an eyebrow. One of a few different subjects brought up was, when we were attacked why wasn’t our boarders shut down. Is that not one of the first things you would do if you were being attacked? Neither Mexico, nor Canada boarders were shut down. It was business as usual.

Also I don’t understand why innocent citizens were being harassed   because of their beliefs. Is this not a freedom of speech nation?

He also argues that “the Commission made numerous recommendations on how to prevent future terrorist attacks, many of them simple and inexpensive to implement, but the Bush administration has failed to do so” Some argue that placing soldiers at out boarders and in on our street corners to increase our national security would have been ideal. This would have caused only another problem by violating our constitutional rights.

I do think we are doing the best that we can with our national security as to not violate our rights as a nation. I look at it as…Damned if you do..Damned if you don’t.  

Justify a ‘hit list’

I would have to tend to agree with this argument. I don’t find it constitutional that the government is able to Justify a "hit list  on a United States citizen without going through the courts. We have to go through the court system when one is put on trial for a crime and go through the process to convict and serve punishment so why would this be any different. This is a touchy subject though. Being that Anwar Awlaki who is an agent for Al Qaeda makes him our enemy. And with our soldiers at war we don’t have to go through the courts to shoot and kill the enemy. So my question is, do we have to go through the same court process if they are not a U.S. citizen and are on U.S soil?

“Awlaki's father asks the court to rule that his son can't be killed outside armed conflict "unless he is found to present a concrete, specific and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize the threat."

I do believe as is stated that the case will be thrown out because in my opinion his father has no legal right to even submit such a thing when his Son, who is a U.S.citizen and is of age, has access to our courts.

We know he’s a threat and is in bed with the enemy but, the fact is he is a U.S citizen just as all the rapist and murderers are and we still have to go through the same judicial process with them.

The war in Iraq

The war in Iraq

There is still an ongoing debate about the war in Iraq. Should we withdraw or continue the fight is the question, and one that our nation seems to be battling with. I seem to have mixed emotions on the subject, but, one issue that draws me away from the war is money. Our nation is in such a financial crunch at the moment so; can we really afford to support the war when we have no jobs and a good percentage of us are living on unemployment? I think maybe are troops could be of better use to us if they were home and protected are boarders instead of being abroad.

I think we have been in Iraq long enough. We have spent our money on trying to make their country a better place and I think we have succeeded in that, at least as best as we possibly can. I don’t think that keeping our troops there is going to change anything more than what we already have. I believe it is up to them now.

Of course this is strictly my opinion. I think we need to bring our troops home and beef up our own boarders.

 http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home