What the TSA controversy is all about-Another attack on the left

[Politics_Guy25]

I'm surprised that no one has picked up on what the TSA controversy is really all about. It is about privatizing the TSA secondarily but primarily it is part of the refrain of the conservative and media establishment that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress want a huge scary big-brother government that sends its tentacles into every aspect of one's life. Here's how their argument goes:

"First they bail out the banks and the auto companies. WTF? The government should have let them fail. Look at that damn Obama. The government is taking over our economy. Then, you have the stimulus. DAMN OBAMA! Spending all this money to try to rescue the economy and making the debt go up up up. The government is big and it's spending wildly out of control. Then, OMG, now big brother is going to socialize medicine and create death panels. His HCR law must fail!!!!!! It's a massive expansionism of big government and is an affront to St. Ronnie's dictum that government is the problem, not the solution. The government is taking over everything! He's socialist. Now we come to the TSA patdowns. OMG, big brother or in this case big sister is now expanding the role of big government to even touch your own private parts!! That big bad communist Obama! The government is totally out of control. It's massive and we are becoming a totalitarian socialist state. The government even wants to see me naked now!"

That's their argument. Can't you see? The whole premise of the GOP 2010 campaign was that government is too big, that Obama is a big government liberal, that it must be stopped. They experienced success with that message and now their insidious efforts to paint President Obama as a out of touch wacko big government liberal continue with this TSA scandal.

Don't you get it people??? This TSA nonversy, which was never an issue during the Bush years, is all about continuing to try to paint Barack Obama as a wild-eyed communist trying to take away your freedoms. When you buy into it, don't you get that you're buying into the whole Reagan refrain that government intervention is bad!!!! Don't you understand the people behind this nonversy's motives?

This TSA nonversy is just the latest salvo in the so far successful attempt to paint Obama as a wild-eyed socialist liberal determined to let the government control every aspect of one's life. Don't you get it????

Please people wake up!! When you buy into this story, you are buying into the values that you came onto this board to try to discredit and defeat.

Now, sure, can the TSA be inappropriate at times? Absolutely. But that's not what this story is about. This story is about trying to ensure a GOP victory in 2012.

[pnwmom]

1. You're right -- that's why Faux, Limbaugh, and the Drudge Report

are beating the drums about this. When Bush instituted security measures, according to the Rethugs, this showed that he was strong against terrorism. When Obama does, it's big-brother, evil government.

[DrToast]

2. .

.

[jaxx]

3. Next question, why is the left buying into it?

[frazzled]

22. Because although they think they are the progressive left ...

many are actually just hardcore libertarians. They seem to have more in common with the Tea Party than with progressive Democratic values. I hate to be that blunt, but it's true.

I could accept that if it were honest concern. But all the posts about "naked pictures" and "groping" make the whole discussion beyond tolerance. It's right-wing fear-talk, hyper-exaggeration, false prudery, and plain old bullshit.

This whole TSA brouhaha has made me want to just give up on this place. The level of thought is below Free Republic levels.

[Union Scribe]

25. Seems to me the "right wing fear talk" is saying we need to submit

to whatever indecencies they want to put us through because of the millions of terrorists trying to kill all of us. You know, the kind of talk that supporters of this madness are forced to resort to.

[boppers]

26. "indecencies"

Quick question:

Which party has spent more time going after "indecencies", such as birth control, sex toys, sexy pictures and movies, comic books (I'm not kidding), and other affronts to, well, those who thought themselves "decent"?

For illustration, let's rewind the clock 150 years or so, and imagine a statement:
"It is indecent for a black man to see a white woman's ankles!"

Would that be a democrat? A republican? A progressive?

That being said, Tipper and Hillary's "decency" efforts are not forgotten by me.

[Union Scribe]

27. I literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Is that how you typically reply to people, by rambling about Tipper Gore and vibrators? What in the hell does any of that have to do with Democrats buying into terror rhetoric?

[boppers]

28. Let's focus on one aspect. Ankles.

Are they indecent or not?

Does it lead to moral decay for others to see them?

[Eric J in MN]

4. If a Republican says something true, I'm not going to say it's false because he has ulterior motives

The TSA shouldn't randomly choose people to grope.

The above statement is true whether said by a Democrat or a Republican.

[frylock]

5. wrong

again.

[LittleBlue]

6. A lot of progressives don't want to live in a police state

Including myself. Naked body scans and groping aren't appropriate.

[Phx_Dem]

7. I think most progressives are all about a police state,

as long as it's "transparent."

They want the government to do everything but cook dinner for them. Maybe that too.

[treestar]

11. +1 million

Exactly. They expect it to efficiently do what they want, without regard to the millions of other citizens.

[sabrina 1]

42. So, you were for these anti-constitutional abuses when Bush

first tried to introduce them in 2004? You opposed the efforts of the ACLU, and all the other civil liberties organizations who successfully STOPPED Bush from implementing them? You do know that Civil Liberties groups along with the fierce advocacy of the left mostly, kept those machines out of our airports until last year?

Did you also oppose the successful effort from the same organizations to stop these same 'enhanced pat-downs' when Bush tried, but failed to get them implemented? Yes, Bush did try those pat-downs in 2004, but because of the outrage back then, they were stopped.

Were you saying then what you are saying now, that progressives were just interfering with the right to be safe of millions of other Americans? Because quite honestly, I was there in this fight from the very first time news came out about these scanners. And people like Giuliani, and Chertoff et al were pushing them, and I never saw a single post on any of the Demcoratic boards I was on during those years, supporting them.

I keep asking people who are now FOR them, when they changed their minds, IF they did. Because if they were not opposed to them then, they were supporting Bush and Chertoff, and Giuliani and their Corporate buddies, and we on the left pointed out over and over again that none of this about security that it was about money, and power.

I'm having a very difficult time remembering a single Democrat who actually was defending Bush back then and I have a feeling if I searched the archives here the outrage I remember on all Dem. boards was represented here.

But no one who now supports Bush's police state equipment and pat-downs, has answered my question as to where they were he was in charge?

I guess what I want to know is, 'was it Bush who was 'attacking the left' when he tried to install those machines, or was it the ACLU who did contribute to defeating them, who was 'attacking the left'? Do you see how confusing this is for those of us who have, for six years, joined the effort to preserve our Constitutional rights and to prevent this government from using 9/11 to further erode them?

[Union Scribe]

15. Wow.

Wasn't expecting to read something like that here. What do you have against progressives?

[NorthCarolina]

40. This is the view of a supposed Democrat???

Sounds like something you might hear on Faux News.

[woo me with science]

9. [phone]

If the administration does not want to be painted as intrusive, they should not BE intrusive.

[jefferson_dem]

21. I'm wondering where this "police state" is that you speak of.

Have you seen any of these supposedly scandalous events with your own eyes...or are you just buying into what the talking heads - many of them who are either invested in tearing down this administration, stirring up anger and fear, or both - are "reporting"?

Check out the photos drudge has been running with the past week. Dog whistles galore. Guess you heard them. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/links_recap_picture.htm

[Fruittree]

8. I tend to agree with you...

There's just something too hysterical about the response that doesn't feel right..Also, I'd like to ask people who do --- why do people use the word "grope"? That just gives the whole thing a different sense than if it's just a body check which is what it's meant to be. I don't know what the answer is and to be honest I don't fly if I can avoid it but members of my family do and I'd rather there be all precautions taken than lose any of them in an attack. And, again, I'm not someone who sees a terrorist in every corner. What I wish is we could as a country just have a calm, rational conversation without all the accusations and conspiracy theories that seem to go around. The real question seems to be how do we strike a balance between insuring safety and insuring the freedom to come and go as we please unencumbered by endless checks and regulations.

[treestar]

10. So true if only it could be discussed rationally.

Whether these particular steps are effective or not, or worth it, and what risk we are able to accept. Instead of all this noise about police states, wanting to take our rights, or other ulterior motives.

[Fruittree]

24. Exactly - it seems to happen with every issue where

we just can't have a rational conversation anymore.

[LisaL]

12. If anybody else decided to pat down your crotch

how would you describe it?

[Fruittree]

23. But this isn't just anybody else - there's a purpose or

at least intended purpose to it and I don't think it's what the word "groping" usually brings to mind. To me, it seems we should be asking the questions - Do these enhanced measures achieve the purpose they are meant to achieve or not? And if not, what would be better? If they do, are they so invasive that we'd rather deal with the increased risk of not using them? Or are they so invasive that we need to come up with something better anyway?
The problem, of course, is that these questions are hard to answer. The only way to answer them is for there to be an attack on a plane. If there were an attack on a plane in spite of them, we'd know they don't work. If there were an attack on a plane and we had stopped using them,we still wouldn't be sure the methods would have thwarted the attack but I bet all those people on the plane and their families would be wishing the government had done something more to have protected them even if it involved what you choose to call "groping".

[LisaL]

31. I am pretty sure that terrorists among us are rare and far between.

So, tell me again, how randomly picking a small percentage of air travelers for an "enhanced" pat down is going to be effective?

[Fruittree]

32. I agree with you as to the number of terrorists and that's why I said

that I'm not sure there's a point to what they're doing or even if it would work. That's why I think a rational discussion with rational alternatives suggested is what we need and not hyperbolic over-reaction which is what I've been hearing. Do you think the risk is so small, we need no checks whatsoever? The problem I see with that myself is what if having done something either this or some other form of passenger check could have saved lives. Is it not worth the inconvenience?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. If the TSA stops doing what it's doing

and we get hit with another terrorist attack (or even an unsuccessful attempted attack counts as a "failure" nowadays according to conservatives), the conservatives will turn right around and attack President Obama for being "weak" on terrorism (again) and not doing enough to prevent such attempts. Mark my words. The conservatives were behind most of the growth in government in terms of "security" since 9/11 and they have consistently supported all kinds of infringements on civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. Their sudden newfound *concerns* about civil liberties have nothing IMHO to do with the TSA and EVERYTHING to do with who's President right now. They are being utter hypocrites about the entire situation and see it as one more way to not only attack President Obama but to also stir up the left against him (more) IMHO. This whole situation has been IMHO "ginned up" far beyond the actual harm that these new procedures have actually caused.

[LisaL]

14. And if it doesn't stop what it's doing and we get hit, what then?

You think that TSA patting down 3 year olds and 80 year olds is going to be all that effective? Really?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. Probably not

and I'm not really even defending them suffice it to say that I think that this issue has gotten somewhat blown out of proportion to the actual harm it has caused and that the right has been particularly hypocritical about it. I'm all for finding more effective (and less invasive) methods of ensuring security for air passengers. Unfortunately, right now everything is so volatile (on both sides) that I'm not sure that it's possible to even have the kind of conversation about security and civil rights that we need to be having as a society and, frankly, should've had about 8-9 years ago but really couldn't because back then any questioning of (P)resident Bush and John Ashcroft's infringements on civil liberties for security reasons was immediately attacked as "unpatriotic" and considered almost like a "terrorist attack" itself. Since President Obama came into office, he has attempted to reverse some of these unconstitutional and and anti-democratic infringements and take us back to the way it was pre-9/11 (for the most part) by attempting to close Gitmo and to try KSM in the federal court system. As well all know, the right immediately attacked and demonized both initiatives and, along with the "Ground Zero Mosque" *controversy*, they used them to rekindle the still-potent fear of Islamic terrorism among the public. They also lined up to immediately denounce the administration's "failure" in preventing ATTEMPTED attacks on airplanes, which I believe more directly led to the new security measures. I'm not suggesting that we should allow these methods to continue just because conservatives are (supposedly) upset about them too just that we need to better understand why the right is involved in this and ensure that we don't become their pawns in their agenda, which is almost surely in some way to attack and discredit President Obama (and Democrats in general). What we need to do IMHO is to avoid succumbing to the same kind of hysteria that the right is good at fomenting about what is going on and promote a rational discussion and alternative ideas about all of this.

[LisaL]

20. I am all for safety but I personally find methods TSA has started

to use intrusive. I also don't think it's going to be effective.

[struggle4progress]

29. Is it your view that (say) only folk between the ages of 15 and 55 should be screened?

Child Bomber Kills 23 In Iraq
Suicide Attack Targets Family Members of Fallujah Police Chief
By Ernesto Londoño and Uthman al-Mokhtar
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 15, 2008
BAGHDAD, May 14 -- A youthful suicide bomber killed at least 23 people Wednesday ... Zobaie, the police chief of Fallujah in Anbar province, said a bomber of about 12 years of age attacked the funeral ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403554.html

1Elderly suicide bomber kills Afghan policeman
Friday February 13, 2009 (0633 PST)
KHOST: An elderly man, who appeared to have difficulty in walking, blew himself up and killed a policeman who was helping him in Afghanistan on Thursday, a local official said ... http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?211347

[Union Scribe]

17. I keep reading this and it's absurd

You're basically saying you will tolerate anything as long as the conservatives can't use it against Democrats later. What good are principles and keeping power if that's how decisions are going to be made?

[jefferson_dem]

18. Sorry, that's not what the poster is saying ... at all.

But welcome to DU!

[jefferson_dem]

16. Truth.

I've been trying to make that case here for two weeks. I can't believe so many are so willing to buy into the drudge-driven hype.

Were people NOT paying attention to the battle over airline security in 2002? We have a rather tragic political casualty in GA - Max Cleland - who stood strong ... and lost his career ... fighting for those TSA agents who my DU friends are now shamefully bashing ... for simply doing their job. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Wake up! Please don't be toolish.

[Eric J in MN]

36. Is there any theoretical TSA rule which would be too far?

If they said 100% of passengers had to have a TSA officer's hands-down-the-pants before boarding a plane, would that be going too far?

[Politics_Guy25]

39. Thanks Jefferson-dem

Great minds think alike lol.

[frylock]

30. take it up with the aclu

fucking morans.

[golfguru]

33. My problem with TSA is they are always behind the curve &

therefore it is a beauracracy gone wild.

First it was the box cutters....now I can't carry small scissors to trim my mustache & nose hair.
Then it was the shoe bomber....now grandma and grandpa and all kids have to remove shoes.
Then they found liquid explosives...now we can't take a stupid shampoo bottle or water bottle with us.
Then it was the underwear bomber....now they grope our privates and zap us with X-ray radiation.

Next bomber will have liquid explosives packed in his anus....I dread to think what TSA will
come up after that! A proctoscopy for all airline passengers? Jeebus!!

Why can't TSA focus instead on parameters that never change?
Only 4 or 5 criteria can identify every past, present & future terrorist.
And that will spare 99% of the rest of us this stupid nonsense.

[pmorlan1]

34. We know exactly what the story is about

Your post is very similar to one that appeared a few days ago on DU. There were a number of posts within that thread that challenged the premise that being against what the TSA is doing is falling into some GOP trap. I would encourage everyone who is interested in this topic to read the comments in the thread below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x571746

[Odin2005]

35. So this BS is OK as long as our side does it. Gotcha!

:eyes:

[saras]

37. Maybe airlines are a luxury we can no longer afford

"A lot of progressives don't want to live in a police state. Including myself. Naked body scans and groping aren't appropriate."

"I think most progressives are all about a police state, as long as it's "transparent."
They want the government to do everything but cook dinner for them. Maybe that too."

Personally I tend to believe the one who speaks for the group they belong to, and disbelieve the one who talks trash about the 'other'.

A substantial number of the people it happens to experience it as groping, not at all as a rational search. This becomes even more clear if they are unhappy with it, and it then becomes overtly punitive.

I also tend to disbelieve people who assert that I get my experiences and opinions from media personalities I barely know about, and not from the first-hand experience of myself and my own acquaintances. Who is this Drudge and where do I meet him/her? Why should I care what he/her says, without spending some years getting to know them personally, when I have so many friends who fly?

If someone likes, or doesn't mind, being groped (i.e. their genitals poked and prodded) by not just random strangers, but specially selected unpleasant ones, they have the right to enjoy that. There's all kinds of BDSM clubs, and private relationships, for them. They have NO right to impose it on others, or to attack others for refusing to have it imposed on them, nor do they have a right to tell others that they need to feel differently than they do, especially given the grossness of its offensiveness and the triviality of its benefit.

If it detected thousands of explosive carriers monthly, or even dozens, I would reconsider my opinion. As it is, the practice is in fact the terrorism it is claimed to protect us from, and that terrorism doesn't seem to exist in significant enough quantities to worry about.

[sabrina 1]

38. When did Democrats jump ship on this issue? When did 'we' decide

to give up the fight to preserve our Constitutional rights?

For six years this has been a Democratic issue. Why do I have to keep reminding people of the fight to keep these anti-Constitutional tactics OUT of our airports and elsewhere, to protect this country from Bush's police state tactics?

Let me ask you something. When they first appeared as a possibility during the Bush administration and people on the left took immediate action to fight them were you FOR them back then? Did you support Bush's attempts to destroy the Constitution?

I am increasingly puzzled by what the 'left/democrats' stand for anymore. Until now, when this administration last year overrode all the work done under Bush to keep these machines and pat-downs out of our lives, this was almost unananamously an extremly important issue for Democrats.

Did you know that the movement to stop 'enhanced pat-downs' succeeded when they were tried in 2004? Even Bush with all his political capital was unable to get this done? But here we are with a Democrat succeeding in giving up our rights where a Republican failed.

Why have Democrats flip-flopped on it now? Are we really just as hypocritical as the right? Is the reason for defending these abuses of our rights now because it's okay if our team does it?

And who cares what the right does or doesn't do? Since when do we take a position simply to oppose the right, rather than BECAUSE it's the right thing to do?

This is just stunning, to suddenly abandon Civil Rights because it's no longer Bush doing it. Over and over again, I am wondering what party this is. It bears no resemblance to the one I thought I belonged to.

[golfguru]

41. Man you just exposed all hypocrites /nt

[Skittles]

43. all pretty obvious

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

44. The TSA under Bush was throwing out your Dr. Pepper, not finger-banging your kids.

And people complained about the TSA being a den of incompetent hooligans then too, the TSA has just with each passing year gone further down the rabbit hole and ultimately began further escalations.

There is a perfect compromise here, don't privatize the TSA - abolish it entirely and prosecute those who committed crimes while in the employ of the TSA.

The convoluted sense of worker solidarity that seems to have defined this issue on the left is ridiculous. If this bullshit came into force under Bush the discussion around here would be very different. The right got out in front on this issue and took ownership while we were "groping" around for excuses.

[Union Scribe]

46. You're right.

As (obviously) a strong union supporter, I find it crazy to support the TSA on those grounds. For one, they aren't union yet. Even if they were, the police have unions too, and we don't have a problem calling them out on civil rights violations and acts of brutality.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

47. I truely believe...

That if the mortgage scammers were to organize and call themselves "The Brotherhood of Retail Mortgage Professionals" they would find no stronger cheering section than on Democratic Underground. Instantly they would go from bottom feeding lowlifes beneath telemarketers in scorn to "hard working Americans who tried their hardest to put other hard working Americans in homes"

[Beartracks]

45. Remember when Obama started warrantless wiretaps? Oh, wait. That was Bush. n/t