JohnH Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Something that made the radio & TV reports today in my hometown. Jerry Orr, the plainspoken Airport Director for the Charlotte, NC airport was asked in an interview why there are so many delays in getting new security screening devices operational. He replied - "...it all boils down to who should be lookin' at you naked." Here's the link, and what really gives the phrase its punch is Jerry's classic southern accent. After the commercial ends, skip forward about halfway through the story. Jerry is the guy in the brown jacket. http://www.wbtv.com/global/category.asp?c=151146&clipId=&topVideoCatNo=128873&topVideoCatNoB=168978&topVideoCatNoC=135991&topVideoCatNoD=139409&topVideoCatNoE=139408&clipId=4417681&autostart=true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacun Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstaxes Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Just wondering... I flew from Newark to Orlando this summer and received 2 full body massages 1 going and 1 coming. I expected a problem at security because I have 2 total knee replacements, plastic and metal (Dr. gave me cards to prove it). But that wasn't what set off the scanner, it was my underwire bra. Okay, so coming home I did not wear a bra, just a bathing suit top and no wires. Well again I received a massage. Now they want to see me naked. Will they realize it is the underwire on my bra or are they going to make me strip in the airport?? Don't get me wrong I am in favor of security checks, but if I am going to do something wrong wouldn't I research first??? Oh, well there goes our privacy. Second thought, maybe it is a good thing. It could detect medical problems, cancer, tumors, heart problems, and save on medical premiums?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don in Upstate NY Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Second thought, maybe it is a good thing. It could detect medical problems, cancer, tumors, heart problems, and save on medical premiums?? I think you've got it. It's all part of the new health care plan. They can replace a $100,000 airport scanner and a $100,000 medical x-ray machine with a single device costing only $375,000. And with the money we save we can afford to raise taxes. Oh brave new world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 The only solution, of course, is for all of us to fly naked (after body cavity searches). I wonder if the airlines will then start charging for use of blankets, seat sanitizers, and blindfolds! (There are certain things I really do NOT want to see in this world. High on that list would be jowly, overweight businessmen and great-grandmothers, sitting naked in an airliner. A blindfold would be worth a lot of money then.) I get the feeling that both Amtrak and the highways will be seeing more business, effective immediately. Perhaps even the resurgence of the ocean liner. In the meantime, El Al has an exemplary security record -- because they take security seriously, and do not water down safety requirements for fear of being called names by idiots. Profiling -works- and I don't care if it's PC or not. Don't want to offend? Well, being so PC that innocents are endangered offends ME. Reconcile that. :mad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstaxes Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 If we all ran around naked the airlines would lose money on the fee they charge for baggage. Boy this could be depressing. They would probably charge more if you are more endowed then the next passenger. This is really an interesting concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 If we all ran around naked the airlines would lose money on the fee they charge for baggage. Boy this could be depressing. They would probably charge more if you are more endowed then the next passenger. This is really an interesting concept. They could just charge by total weight. Or total volume. And UPS would rake in a bundle getting our luggage to our destinations. Maybe Boeing picked the wrong time to bring out that new plane. (Remember the movie "Airplane"? -- I sure picked the wrong week to quit a ) drinking, b ) smoking, c ) doing cocaine, d ) sniffing glue, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 >>The only solution, of course, is for all of us to fly naked<< They could issue travel gowns. A flighty nighty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 >>The only solution, of course, is for all of us to fly naked<< They could issue travel gowns. A flighty nighty. Bad. Very, very, very bad. I like it. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 >>they take security seriously, and do not water down safety requirements for fear of being called names by idiots<< It is not idiotic fear of the Constitution, but idiotic fear of terrorism driven by media hysteria, that is the problem. This New Years weekend should remind us that incidents like last week's failed attempt are dwarfed by the real risks we face. Our tolerance of, even desire for, drunk and angry revelry is a national shame. We seem to find comfort in the cliche, "they hate us for our freedom." But far more Americans are killed just by lovers than by religious fanatics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted January 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Yes, let's focus on the drunk, angry revelers & just ignore the religous fanatics intentionally killing innocent people because they believe they're on a Divine mission. After all, our government isn't capable of doing two things at once. What in the world does one of these have to do with the other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 ...religous fanatics intentionally killing innocent people because they believe they're on a Divine mission. Good thing there weren't any airplanes during the crusades. Ahh well, give them a few hundred years and they'll even out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted January 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 I wish it were possible to believe that time might even things out. Unfortunately I don't hold out much hope for that happening, even in 200-300 years. It simply isn't possible to draw moral equivalence on this issue. Whereas the Crusaders were clearly acting in violation of the written teachings of their faith, the current crop of zealots is acting in complete agreement with the written teachings of theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 >>the Crusaders were clearly acting in violation of the written teachings of their faith<< It wasn't so clear to them. That's why they called themselves Crusaders. Which (let us never forget) is one of the words our President used to justify the Iraq war. So let's get off this us-against-them hysteria and try working together, which is the written teachings of OUR faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted January 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 It would have been clear to them if they had been able & willing to study the teachings of their faith, rather than depend upon others to do that for them. As for us, we should always be willing to work together with friend or foe as individuals, but our government has a responsibility to recognize threats and take appropriate action against them. Labeling a mortal threat as "hysteria" is nothing more than a lame attempt to avoid the truth. Keep your head in the sand if you wish - I prefer to face reality. Incidentally, Bush's "Crusade" comment is frequently tied to Iraq, yet I recall that he made it around Sept 16, 2001. It was a terrible choice of words on his part, and it played right into the hands of the terrorists (just for clairty, those are the people we are fighting against in the "war on terror" that the left wants to pretend doesnt' exist). But can anyone provide hard evidence that he ever used the word in the context of Iraq, or is that just more of the anti-Bush hysteria we keep hearing? Incidentally, thanks for the confirmation - I'd been anticipating that it wouldn't be long before you'd start down the road toward blaming it all on Bush. I applaud the consistency that accompanies your hysteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 I wish it were possible to believe that time might even things out. Unfortunately I don't hold out much hope for that happening, even in 200-300 years. It simply isn't possible to draw moral equivalence on this issue. Whereas the Crusaders were clearly acting in violation of the written teachings of their faith, the current crop of zealots is acting in complete agreement with the written teachings of theirs. What I mean is that I hope they learn to be selective about which parts of the Qur'an they follow, just as modern Christians have done with the Bible. (I mean no disrespect to Christians, but there is some nasty stuff in the Old Testament, like selling your daughter into slavery, possession of slaves, no contact with women during menstruation, put to death anyone who works on Sunday, etc.) ...but our government has a responsibility to recognize threats and take appropriate action against them. Threats like guns on airplanes, for example, which most likely would have ended the situation as quickly as it had come up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 <snip> Eric --I have the exact same Demotivator on my bookcase here in my office! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted January 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 Eric: To hope that they would be selective about the Qur'an is a nice sentiment, but there's plenty of evidence that it simply can't happen. Bernard Lewis, among many other scholars, lays out some convincing evidence to back up that statement. I believe it is a grave mistake to draw parallels of this type between the three faiths. To me, it amounts to whistling past the graveyard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 If Susan Estrich keeps writing stuff like this, they're going to kick her out of the Democratic Party. She's beginning to sound like a hysterical right-wingnut paranoid conservative. (That's what you get called when you start making some sense) http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich.html?columnsName=ses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.