Wednesday, November 17, 2010

New Threat to Americans: Gay TSA Agents

I've been keeping an eye on the latest wave of resistance to the Transportation Security Administration's newest airport "security" techniques. Not everybody's happy about it. Seems these days they give you a choice, at least at some airports. One, you can go through a full-body scanner that not only reveals your nude body to TSA personnel and contractors who might save the image if they choose to, and which by the way bombards your body with an amount of radiation that may prove harmful to frequent fliers. Or two, you can have your body patted down by staff who will make sure you don't have anything hidden up under your scrotum, if you're a man, or between your labia, if you're a woman -- this is said to be a very intimate experience. Oh, and if you get to the gate and decide you don't want to submit to either of these ignominies, but just want to go back home, they can fine you ten eleven thousand dollars for leaving the secure area.

Americans enjoy living in fear. I don't understand it, I'm not going to change it, but that's the way it is.

A recent CBS News poll found that more than eighty percent of Americans are in favor of these security tactics, they think that the elimination of privacy and human dignity is a small price to pay for the increase in safety these procedures ensure. Results did not vary much among Republican, Democratic, and Independent respondents.

Here's my opinion: I'm against it. People are giving up their privacy as if it didn't matter, and I'm against it. I like my privacy and I wish other people cared about theirs, too, I wish they wouldn't trade away their last shred of dignity hoping to not-really-prevent the near-zero-probability event of a terrorist sneaking a bomb onto the airplane they are planning to board.

You, reader, are probably one of that eighty-plus percent, that's okay, I am comfortable being outvoted. You don't have to consider my opinion, but you should very seriously consider this warning about the real danger of the new TSA procedures from the Americans for Truth About Homosexuality's Peter "Porno Pete" LaBarbera:
CHICAGO – Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) today questioned the propriety of “same-gender” TSA (Transportation Security Administration) “pat-downs” – if the TSA agents doing the “patting down” are homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.

Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano went out of her way yesterday to stress that the TSA pat-downs are “same-gender” – mostly to reassure women that men will not be groping them at airports in the name of safety.

“But what about homosexual TSA agents?” AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responded. “Isn’t it just as inappropriate for a ‘gay’ male TSA agent to pat down male travelers as it is for a normal, heterosexual male TSA agent to pat down female travelers?

“The reality is, most traveling men would not want Barney Frank to pat them down at the airport security checkpoint,” LaBarbera said. “Neither would it be fair to assign Ellen DeGeneres to pat down female travelers. (In the same vein, the Army should no more force normal male soldiers to shower and bunk with homosexual male soldiers than it would force females soldiers to bunk and shower with their male counterparts.)” Should Gay TSA Agents Be Barred from Giving ‘Same-gender Pat-downs’?

It is going to be really embarrassing when somebody gets a photograph of one of these Americans for Blah Blah guys immediately following their same-sex patdown, if you know what I mean. It is important to them to prevent this.

19 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Jim about the pat downs. I'm completely against them. I'm also completely against the naked body scanners. The whole issue makes me furious.

Regarding the issue about gay TSA agents....I went through an airport in Boston and submitted, unwillingly, to the pat down. They made a big deal of telling me that a woman would be doing the pat down.

I could have cared less whether a man or a woman did my pat down. It was all very degrading regardless of who did it. What does it matter at that point?

But think about why they have women doing pat downs on women and men doing pat downs on men. I assume it is because of the possibility of sexual excitement on the part of the examiner or the person being patted down or other sex-related issues. Otherwise, why do we care whether a man or a woman does a pat down?

So, at that point, when they're segregating men and women, they've already made us start thinking about why we're being segregated -- purely for reasons related to sex. So is it a stretch to then think about whether the person patting you down, who is of the same gender, is homosexual or heterosexual?

If you want to take away the gay/straight issue at the airports, then the TSA agents need to stop segregating men and women when they do the pat downs.

Of course, that will go over like a lead balloon too.

November 17, 2010 9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After writing the above, I went back and read AFTAH's statement. They basically said what I said.

Why doesn't that make sense to Jim? Is there another reason for separating males and females in situations like this that the rest of us don't know about?!!

November 17, 2010 10:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In the same vein, the Army should no more force normal male soldiers to shower and bunk with homosexual male soldiers than it would force females soldiers to bunk and shower with their male counterparts."

that's true

the situation of a gay man, sexually attracted to other men, bunking with a straight man is obviously a problem

but, when you think about it, having two gay guys bunk up together is not a good idea either

the only logical thing would be to have the gay guy bunk with women but I have a feeling that won't fly

all this is to say:

the best thing would be to leave open homosexuals out of the military altogether

November 17, 2010 11:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the best thing would be to leave open homosexuals out of the military altogether"

You skipped a step of logic, anon. Why is an "open homosexual" more of a problem than a closeted one?

November 18, 2010 6:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the same reason war is worse than politics

still, that's not to say closeted gays don't present problems in a military setting

for one thing, closeted gays are susceptible to blackmail and could compromise national security

best of all would be to repeal DADT and enact an outright ban on homosexuals in the military

November 18, 2010 6:25 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“the situation of a gay man, sexually attracted to other men, bunking with a straight man is obviously a problem”

“man,” “men,” “man.” So, would it ok if a gay woman, sexually attracted to other women, bunk with straight women? Or did that half of the puzzle just slip your mind?
---
Army Giving More Waivers in Recruiting

It has also increased the number of so-called “moral waivers” to recruits with criminal pasts ... The sharpest increase was in waivers for serious misdemeanors, which make up the bulk of all the Army’s moral waivers. These include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide.

“closeted gays … could compromise national security … best of all would be to repeal DADT and enact an outright ban on homosexuals in the military”

How indelibly patriotic of you. Looking out for the squeamishness of those poor poor intentionally-violent thieves who run people over.

November 19, 2010 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No doubt, Anon, if you had your way you would ban homosexuals from the world. What a sad, narrow-minded and, yes, fear-filled existence you lead.

November 19, 2010 11:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"ban"?

nah

"ban" would imply governmental action which I support only on a limted basis, such as government employment

in that case, it would be preferable to ban homosexuality from government activities such as defense, education, disease control...

but the good news is that I support a lot less government employment and a lot more private employment

November 21, 2010 6:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also against the new policies, and shocked to find myself on the same side as you.

They are insisting they need better security. My answer would be profile, and adopt Israel's system, which with a higher incidence of terrorism does a better job of preventing it...

Your thoughths ?

November 21, 2010 1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm glad that we agree on such a crucial issue.

I think that Israel is big into behavioral profiling, too, which makes a ton of sense. What about dogs at the airport? I also heard that there's a wipe for the hands that can determine whether anyone has touched explosives. Also, there used to be some air puffer machine at the airports that could detect explosives. I wonder what happened to those....

November 21, 2010 8:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how about a system where you two types of flights are available and anyone can opt for for which they prefer?

"A" flights could be for anyone who wants to be completely assured there is no danger, of any kind, and is willing to have cameras snaked up his ass and down his throat and submit to naked patdowns and pay extra fees to hire armed guards who patrol up and down the aisles on planes

"B" flights would only require that those who go to the gates of airports have walked through a metal detector and could be for people willing to take the chance that once every few years a nut might board a plane they are on and try to blow it up

right now, we are submitting to procedures that would be sexual assault if anyone other than the government were doing it

and, if we don't, we aren't allowed to fly, which may sometimes be necessary to the pursuit of happiness

why?

to protect our freedom, of course

November 21, 2010 9:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim -- You have to put up a new post because there's too much agreement around here on the TSA issue....

November 22, 2010 9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a gay man, sexually attracted to other men, bunking with a straight man is obviously a problem"

And just what is this problem you allude to, "Anonymous"?

Do you honestly believe that gay men are attracted to heterosexual men? Exactly what are the statistics you could quote that illustrate the exact number of cases in the military of a gay man coming on to or sexually threatening a heterosexual male? How many examples of gay men having sex with other men in the barracks or the fox hole can you cite?

Feeling threatened by others who are different from you is not very macho, you know.

Your heterosexual ego gets into the way of your ability to think straight. No doubt you also believe that your charms as a heterosexual male can lure any woman you covet in to bed with you.

Get real!
Veteran

November 25, 2010 12:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do you honestly believe that gay men are attracted to heterosexual men?"

yes, I do believe that

do you honestly believe gay guys are attracted only to other gay guys?

do you honestly believe effeminate guys are attracted to other effeminate guys?

"Exactly what are the statistics you could quote that illustrate the exact number of cases in the military of a gay man coming on to or sexually threatening a heterosexual male?"

well, since the consequences of "telling" are severe, that's unlikely

arguing that DADT works is not helping your cause

"How many examples of gay men having sex with other men in the barracks or the fox hole can you cite?"

see above

would you favor young single males and females sharing a room in the military?

November 25, 2010 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon:
"well, since the consequences of "telling" are severe, that's unlikely"

What a cop-out on your part! It seems reasonable to expect that heterosexual men (and hundreds of heterosexual women, as well) who have been sexually offended would have reported any incident to their superiors. Having sex with other men in the barracks or in the fox hole is clearly OBSERVABLE. That's where the statistics would come from. Please quote those.

"do you honestly believe effeminate guys are attracted to other effeminate guys?" Answer: Sometimes...but definitely not a issue for the military to deal with.

How ridiculous...do you think that effeminate men stand any chance of survival in the military? No doubt you fear that they might even be attracted to you (although most gay me have much better taste than that!)

"would you favor young single males and females sharing a room in the military?"

Well...I'm afraid you are asking the wrong person. You would have to ask the heterosexual males and females about that(and I bet I know how they would answer the question). But then, sexual relations (whether wanted or unwanted) between men and women in the military are already a major problem to be addressed. We won't even go into the subject of the inordinate numbers of sexual cohabitation incidences that go on in society in general (and now seemingly acceptable).

Your hatred and fear of others of a different sexual orientation than yours is lamentable.

November 29, 2010 12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there are no "different sexual orientations"

there are normal and deviant sexual preferences

just like there are different preferences of ice cream flavors

you're preference of ice creak flavor is not innate and neither is your preference of sexual attraction

difference: flavors of sexual preference have moral implications, unlike ice cream flavor preferences

it's OK to prefer men if you're a women and vice versa

it's not OK to prefer men if you're a man

throughout history, it has been held advisable to segregate by sexual preference

why should we now upend this policy to cater to the gay agenda?

November 29, 2010 8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Using your ice cream analogy, I suppose you would advocate for the choice of vanilla (or maybe chocolate)ice cream as the only preference and choice that would be acceptable. By your own admission, there are many flavors to choose from.

{"you're (sic) preference of ice creak (sic) flavor is not innate and neither is your preference of sexual attraction") Of course your analogy falls flat when you compare sexual orientation (NOT a choice) with choosing ice cream flavors. Besides...who are you to judge what choices other people make in their lives? I don't question your choice to be a bigot.

"throughout history, it has been held advisable to segregate by sexual preference."

Pre-marriage cohabitation has now become an accepted standard of behavior, despite the yearnings of religionists for the old-fashioned bundling boards and supervised, chaperoned contacts between the sexes.

Too bad you are losing that battle, too!

November 29, 2010 8:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

too?

every time the gay agenda is put up for a vote, it fails

if the only victories you can get are from the bench, they won't last

the consent of the governed is ultimately required here

if you don't believe me, ask former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi

btw, there are many other flavors than gay and straight but, as mentioned, there is a moral dimension to consider in the realm of sexuality

November 29, 2010 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please be so kind as to enumerate the exact points that are listed in the "gay agenda". It appears that you know something that millions of others in our country do not know. Maybe you could even give us some links we could check out to find out more about this "gay agenda".

This canard has been so over-used by the right-wingers and Cafeteria Christians that it has assumed the same credibility and hoax as the Wizard of Oz or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Cadmus

December 01, 2010 12:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home