Do Airport Security Full-body Scanners Violate Fourth Amendment Rights?

A friend of mine, who was female and was very well endowed. When security was beefed up, after 9/11.

When she when through the airport, she was picked out more often for closer inspection then ever before or anybody else on the flight for that matter.

Some of the security inspectors were pervs who seek out cheap thrills.

People hide behind the Constitution to conduct illegal acts. Anything that is illegal should be reported to the authorities regardless of how it is obtained. There are too many loopholes in the laws. All this causes bad people to get away with breaking the law, costing the public a lot of tax money to bring down law breakers down the line. Catch them at the airport and save us some money.

So, you are saying that we voluntarily give up our Fourth Amendment rights when we buy a plane ticket? I have never seen that written on any ticket I have ever purchased in my 47 years, nor have I ever signed such a waiver.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment applies to the government entities only not private organizations. Though the search at airports maybe mandated by law to protect the welfare of the citizens using air travel, airport security is a private organization. The security officers are private citizens acting in the interest of the airlines to secure the planes and Airline customers from harm. What they find they do not have to report. Then they can be held accountable as an accomplice in the crime.

What is to say that the use of the drugs after the security search would not lead to someone to go berserk on the plane. Would this not be a security concern that might affect the welfare of those on board an airplane or the airplane?

The law is there to as a right of the people from forced search and seizures of themselves and property. No one forces you to choose air travel. You make that choice. So you are all so making the choice in the search.

"Though the search at airports maybe mandated by law to protect the welfare of the citizens using air travel, airport security is a private organization..."

I'm sorry, but this statement is wrong in oh so many ways. Anyone, whether by direct employment or by contractual agreement, who is operating under a mandate of the gov't (federal, state, or local) is a duly authorized agent of that authority, not a private citizen. As such, they are subject to the US Constitution (or state), and, as such an agent, must take an oath to abide by, protect and defend the Constitution.

And, no, my right "to be secure in their persons" does not stop when I cross my property line. It applies everywhere, Equally, in all the sovereign territory of the United States of America. There are no "the Feds can do whatever they want with impunity" zones.

I sure do get tired of people playing fast and loose with our Constitution (including our own Congress. Maybe if more people read Adams, Jefferson, et al, they'd have more respect for the underpinnings of our fragile democratic republic.

Hooker <--- life long student of our Founding Fathers

After looking at your statement and looking At TSA your right they are government employees. They do not have the right to force you to the search before you go through a scanner. You do give them probable cause if they see something in the scanners which they feel is suspicious. You all so give them them probable cause if you approach the scanners then back away.

Each person is making a choice when they travel by public transportation. You know that you will be scanned and search before getting on an airplane. So you do not have to travel that way.

So I choose not to fly commercially...

And I haven't flown commercially for over 10 years now. I have absolutely no patience for putting up with airport security.

Besides, the Virginia mountains are prettier on a motorcycle than from an airplane.

Hooker

I will agree pretty hard to see any beauty in the land looking down from 30 thousand feet.

This is an administration search being done to all persons that wish to use air travel. The conditions need to have the government impose a administrate search must have just cause. 911 gave them that. You are consenting to the search and any seizure of unlawful items when you step into the scanners or place your bags onto the table for inspection.

You do not have to do either one just walk away. You will not be allowed to board to fly though with out doing so. Even if they see something in the scanner that is questionable you can walk away and not permit a hands on search. It is at this time your Forth Amendment rights come in to play. What they have seen is still undetermined. They are using educated guess as to what it is. If you refuse a farther search and are forced to it. They then violate your Forth Amendment. Even if they take your drivers license or passport and will not return them until you consent to the search that is considered force.

uh, that used to be the case, but since 911 has not been, at least not in the US. airport security is administered by the TSA which is a branch of the department of homeland security.

But the simple fact is that even the theta wave body scanners can be defeated if someone really knows what they are doing. I was speaking to Congressman Culberson just a couple of weeks ago and outlined how someone could smuggle nearly a kilo of commercial plastic explosives onto an aircraft and pass through both a body scanner as well as an x-ray without triggering any alarms. Frankly I think I scared the man. I know I am scared.

If you don't let them search you then they don't have to let you on the plane and your refusal to a search can give them probable cause to be concerned for the welfare of the other passengers.

When you purchase plane ticket you are giving implied consent to the searches conducted in order to board that plane.

Opererative words here "Implied Consent."

Same thing applies when you cross the boarder into another state "You are giving Implied Consent" to the laws of that state.

"Implied Consent"

I suppose the Answer to your question should be

In todays current environment is it acceptable to be blown out of the sky, Or is it acceptable for the authorities to have the equipment and be able to use said equipment to prevent us from being blown out of the sky.

If it were not for a few the majority would not need these devices.

But until all humans of all races and beliefs can live in harmony, Then the answer is YES it is acceptable.

Simple choice really 1 be blown out of sky ?

2 not to be blown out of sky ? Hmmm let me think about that one. ? DOH !

Very poor reasoning displayed here - the others got this right. Understandable coming from a Brit who doesn't live under the US Constitution - hey our own regime doesn't live by it, so no personal criticism involved here, just the facts, ma'am.

The right to be secure in our own persons, absent a warrant based on probable cause, is absolute. It is not compromised by some perceived risk that supersedes that right. The reason the searches are acceptable is what several posters have stated: the search is a condition of boarding that airplane, or entering that military base, or any number of restricted areas. If I object to the searches, I simply avoid that place.

Personally, I no longer fly if I can get there by car in under two days. I choose not to be poked, prodded and treated and herded like cattle. But that's just me - when I do have to fly, I see herds of people who seem to have no problem lining up and following orders.

I think the conditioning is not accidental, but again, that's just my personal paranoia.

emc_c

Using the full body scanner to look for weapons, explosives or other hazard to the passengers and crew, is not a violation of the 4th amendment. These are legitimate reasons for scanning or other searches prior to boarding a plane, in effect, by the probable cause that unknown persons have the intent to smuggle aboard weapons for terrorist attacks, the "warrant" is for the particular place (airport security/boarding) and particular things to be seized (weapons) from any person boarding (person unknown, or in effect, every person boarding the plane).

However, if the security should happen on personal items such as drugs in the course of this search, can it be prosecuted? The "warrant" is supposed to specify the things to be seized, and in this case it is weapons, not drugs. The argument that someone might take drugs and go berserk on the flight is not convincing. In fact there is no warrant to search for drugs, so if they seize drugs then I think it is a violation of the 4th Amendment. That's what I would expect a lawyer to argue if this went to court.

Frankly I think we'd all be safer if CHL holders were allowed to carry onboard.

How about this? Amend the Constitution to require that all men over the age of 21 shall be armed at all times, and that all women shall have the right to carry a concealed weapon. There is nothing more frightening to a criminal than the possibility of facing an armed citizen, which is why crime rates have plummeted in every single state which has passed a "Shall Issue" concealed carry permit law. The converse is why cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, etc (where getting a concealed carry permit requires an act of God) have the highest violent crime rates in the country, if not the world.

But, you say, a bullet could punch right through the skin of an airplane! Simple solution. Simply mandate that weapons aboard aircraft shall be loaded with light-weight nylon bullets. Not a lot of momentum, but utterly effective against human targets at the sort of ranges that you encounter aboard any aircraft.

Robert A. Heinlein pointed out decades ago that an armed society is a polite society. He was right. (This has a lot to do with why I moved to Wyoming.) Can you imagine terrorists deciding to board a plane, knowing that the the entire passenger compliment was armed and very likely to shot back?

Dr. Moose:

Think about the feasibility and consequences of such a law.

1) Travel is an international matter, and the general codes of security and behavior are agreed on that basis. Perhaps for domestic flights in the US, all passengers should be armed with nylon bullet weapons as they board the plane, expecting to duke it out all the way to their destination. Paintball Air USA? Wahoo. Like to see how long that stays in business, and enjoy your flight.

2) Gender-specific laws? You suggest a law that men must be armed, women may be armed, and persons under 21 may not be armed. Bottom line, in a society with respect for the equality of men and women, your laws would have to be agreed to by both male and female voters.

Consequences: The point of the full body scanning etc etc is because there are people who sneak aboard intending harm and actively seek opportunities for the same. How would your laws play out for them? The way I see it, your gender-bent laws put a target on the back of everyone under 21 as well as females, as the probable hostage to take. Secondly your law would put weapons in the hands of everyone male, regardless of their aim, good judgement, and self-control. Chances of the hostage being harmed go up dramatically in these circumstances. All this law would do is reduce the chances of a male being chosen as a hostage to zero. Feel safer?

If nylon bullets are the answer to on-flight security, then let the airlines employ highly trained, armed personnel to maintain security. Whether male or female, as long as they meet the training requirements and criteria, same as for flight attendants.

Or, maybe this is one job where equal opportunity legislation would be a bonus for society, showing preference to female applicants until gender distribution is 50-50. Would we be safer as a society, if more women were recruited to this sort of position, because it reduces the target on women's back?

In fact sir, I have thought long and hard about the consequences of such things, and I believe can demonstrate convincingly that I am right.

The first part of your first point, I have to give you. Very few countries respect the right to keep and bear arms, and when an American goes to another country, we are obligated to respect their laws and customs. This is something of a problem in this context, considering that a terrorist intending harm to the US is most likely to board an aircraft in a foreign country, though not always, as 911 demonstrated.

Point one part two however suggests to me that you watched too many shoot-em-up westerns in your youth. This is exactly the argument which the gun control lobbies used to try to block the nation's first Shall Issue concealed carry permit law in Florida in 1987, screaming that there would be blood running in the streets. However, Florida did pass that law, and exactly the opposite happened. Violent crime rates plummeted, from the first day that the law was passed. And this pattern has repeated itself in every single state that has passed a Shall Issue law, quite without fail.

As of today, 37 states have Shall Issue CCW permit laws, and three states do not even require permits. Two states will not issue a CCW permit, period, and 8 others may issue with varying degrees of improbability. It is a fact, born out by FBI and National Crime Center statistics, that these 40 states have much lower crime rates now than they did when CCW permits were more restricted. It is also a fact that the cities and states where gun control laws are strictest, such as New York City, Washington DC, California (especially LA and San Diego) have much higher violent crime rates. And please, do not take my word for it. These statistics are published every year. Read them for yourself.

Furthermore, are you honestly going to try to suggest that a handful of terrorists or criminals are going to be able to take hostages when they are looking down the muzzles of dozens of handguns and shoulder-arms with angry citizens behind them? Far more likely that they shall sit meekly in their seats and hope not to be noticed. Think about it. Terrorists always hit soft targets. Ever wonder why?

Point two. Yes by God, gender specific laws. Have you ever heard of chivalry? I know, it's somewhat out of fashion these days, which I suspect has something to do with the decline of western civilization.

But consider this. For the overwhelming majority of human history, it was automatically assumed that it was incumbent upon men to protect women and children. All men, and all women and children. And this for good and logical reason. For the human species to survive, women must bear and rear children. To be able to do this, men must provide for and protect women and children. These are very simple and incontrovertible facts. A nation, a race, a people, can lose a huge percentage of it's adult males, and it's women can close ranks around the survivors and replace the damage in a generation. But, if we lose the women, it's all over! Period, end of story, fini.

Now if you consider this attitude to be obsolete, you are somewhat in the majority, though this is not something to be proud of. What man is more debased than he who will not lift his hand do defend his woman and her children? Half a century ago, every man within earshot would rush to defend a woman's honor. But now? A woman can be raped on a pool table in a crowded pub and nobody does anything!

The point is that if women and children are surrounded by armed men who will instantly leap to their defense, then they need not fear, for such men will rush in by the dozens at the sound of a scream. As opposed to such lovely places as NYC's Central Park, where an evening stroll is worth your life.

You speak of consequences without understanding. You assume the point of view of one who expects to be guarded and protected, rather than one who expects to guard and defend. Security is not brought about by police and guards. I served as a police officer for three years in the Navy, and the simple truth is this. Police officers cannot be everywhere. Ever heard the saying "there's never a cop around when you need one"? Furthermore and as with anyone else, police officers can be subverted, bought, corrupted. Thus the term, "inside job".

As the statistics have demonstrated, crime rates go down when there are armed men on the streets. Criminals fear the armed citizen. And on the whole, people are responsible and decent. Otherwise the streets of the 40 states would be running with blood.

So, let me speak the heart of the matter. I am a man. A professional military man, a warrior. I have born arms in the service of my country and as a civilian, both before and after my military service. I know that security, like freedom, rests with me. I was raised up on the concept that any woman or child who is in my presence is under my protection, I believe it to this day, and I will cheerfully expend my life in this cause if needs must. Though please believe that I am far more likely to expend the life of the bad guy who violates these rules.

I am ashamed of the males of my nation that have forsaken these concepts, for there is more to being a man than simply being born male.

Take this or leave it. But, in the company of heroes, I know where I stand.

Oh, and one last point. Security, like freedom, is not legislated. It is won, by men who are willing to stake their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

I take note that you refuse to debate the real issues I have raised, but rather take issue on a point of rampant feminism. Odd that, considering that you are male. Please believe that any woman who takes offense at my words is more than welcome to take me to task on the matter, and it's been my experience that our ladies are quite capable of defending themselves within this context. So do please quit trying to change the subject.

So, firstly, to suggest that motherhood is obsolete is preposterous. If women stop bearing babies, then we shall fade away as a nation, and quite possibly as a species. Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between the decline of motherhood in this country, and the rise in juvenile delinquency, as well as the failure of our schools. Do check the time-line yourself, though I expect that you will deliberately refuse to see the point.

Secondly, I find your willingness to hide behind a woman's skirts telling. But, it has also been my experience that my sisters in arms also prefer strong men, who will stand up for them.

Lastly, I find your insinuation that this kind of attitude leads directly to the brutal oppression of women to be offensive. This country operated under these rules, and the concepts behind them, for nearly two centuries, and women where freer here than any other country in the world.

The point for me is that I love, revere and respect women. Furthermore, I have no difficulty cooking, cleaning or washing dishes. I am not a male chauvinist pig, but simply a gentleman of the old school. And I am not, never have been, and absolutely refuse to be politically correct.

Hear, hear, Dr. Moose!! I whole-heartedly agree. Being former military, and current owner of CCW permit, I feel much less concern about "terrorists" or simple thuggery. According to the D.O.J. own statistics, the mere presence of a firearm, when displayed, halts two and a half million violent acts per year in the United States.

Something to consider for those who have had that right taken away by their Governments.

Regards Dragon

And that is the principle purpose of the Second Amendment: an armed citizenry is safe, including from their own government.

BTW: I own no firearms, nor ever have. But it's nice to know I can if I wish to, and it is guaranteed by our Constitution.

I question your research and statistics. And so do many other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Research_on_the_Efficacy_of_Concealed_Carry

Research on the Efficacy of Concealed Carry

In Florida, which introduced the "shall-issue" concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, one study found that crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses.^[30] However, another study suggests that in most states with shall-issue laws, there were increases in crime of all types.^[31]

In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, University of Maryland scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime.

Yale Law Professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott's conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott's tests with more complete data yielded none of the results Lott claimed.^[32]

An article by Moody and Marvel uses a more extensive data set and projects effects beyond a five-year span. Though their data set renders an apparent reduction in the cost of crime, Donohue and Ayres point out that the cost of crime increased in 23 of the 24 jurisdictions under scrutiny. Florida was the only jurisdiction showing positive effects from Shall-Issue Laws. Donohue and Ayres question the special case of Florida as well.^[33]

This empirical back-and-forth may well indicate that the data is too incomplete, ambiguous, and crude to establish the effect of conceal-carry on crime.^[34] For further discussion, also see Moody and Marvel's and Ayres and Donohue's 2009 articles in Econ Journal Watch.^[35][36]

The National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, claims to have found "no credible evidence" either supporting or disproving Lott's thesis.^[37] On the Ayres and Donohue hybrid model showing more guns-more crime, the NAS panel stated: "The committee takes no position on whether the hybrid model provides a correct description of crime levels or the effects of right-to-carry laws."^[38]

In 2009, Public Health Law Research^[39], an independent organization, published an evidence summary concluding there is not enough evidence to establish the effectiveness of "Shall-Issue" laws as a public health intervention to reduce violent crime. ^[40]

Using publicly available media reports, the Violence Policy Center documents that from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. have killed at least 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers (excluding cases where individuals were acquitted, but including pending cases).^[41]

In 2007, in the entire United States, there were 16,929 murders and 254 legally justifiable homicides (i.e., self-defense killings).^[42] In 2008, there were 16,272 murders and 245 legally justified/self defense killings in the United States.^[43] However, the FBI Uniform Crime Report states that the justifiable homicide stat does not represent eventual adjudication by medical examiner, coroner, district attorney, grand jury, trial jury or appellate court; few US jurisdictions allow a police crime report to adjudicate a homicide as justifiable, resulting in a undercount in the UCR table. The vast majority of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not involve killing or even wounding an attacker, with government surveys showing 108,000 (NCVS) to 23 million (raw NSPOF) DGUs per year, with ten private national surveys showing 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year.^[44][45]

I might point out that it is the Ivy League establishment in this country which is leading the fight to disarm us all. Possibly because they lack the testicular fortitude to carry firearms? Thus I consider their numbers suspect, because of their hidden agenda. Furthermore, the United Nations has never made any secret of it's desire to disarm the citizens of the entire world. Thus, their statistics must be regarded with suspicion as well.

Now, you may reasonably argue that any numbers which favor firearms ownership and concealed carry must be regarded with suspicion as well. I will not argue the point. I shall simply observe the lessons of history, and I will never surrender my weapons so long as I am breathing.

"An armed society is a polite society" Robert Anson Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon (1942)

This concept is further proven in a dictatorial state. The subjects are polite to the dictator (and his cronies) because the dictator generally has all the "guns" (read that as the ability to forcibly remove impolite subjects from public view with impunity).

There is nothing that scares our current federal officials more than an armed citizenry potentially bent on preserving or restoring our God given rights, as well as keeping those private citizens who would impose their will by force in their hidey holes.

Hooker

PS - has Wyoming filled up with patriots yet or is there room for more? I'm looking for a safe place to retire.

Always room for one more patriot.

Amen, Dr. Moose. That is why I am moving to Florida as soon as my kids graduate from college.

I just knew I was going to be kicking off a firestorm after I posted my first remark.

Okay, all of the gun people to the right side.... No, lets say to the west side of the room, and all the anti-gun people to the east side of the room. Now, let us pose a proposition. The afore-mentioned armed junkie comes into the room with intent to mow people down, not for any particular reason but because his brain is miss-firing and it seems like a good idea to him at the time. So, what happens?

If all you unarmed guys are alone in the room, one of you might call the police, and you might all try to run, all the while absorbing bullets from a single, shaky bad guy. Would you have the courage to rush a shooter en-mass, in hopes that you could overwhelm him by sheer weight of numbers? I'd like to hope so, but your overall attitude argues against that kind of physical courage.

On the other hand, if us gun guys are alone in the room, Mr. Junkie will be brought to an abrupt halt before he can fire a third shot. Of course if all you anti-gunners where still in the room, fewer of us would shoot, since we'd have to insure that if we missed, would wouldn't hit one of you. But the bad guy would still go down.

This is the simple reality which all anti-gunners refuse to acknowledge. In any place where the law prohibits guns, only the bad guys carry guns. And historically, that has far too often included the so called authorities. Like it or not, when the bad guys carry guns, the good guys have to, or they have no recourse. And the bad guys always carry guns. If someone gets in your face with a gun, you can be armed and have a chance, or you can be unarmed and die. Or worse let those who look to you be injured or killed.

Now understand something. I have carried a firearm for most of my adult life. In all of those years, I never once had to draw it. I never went out spoiling for a fight, but I was always prepared to end one if I had to. And I was always unfailingly courteous and polite, since it was always my intent to avoid trouble, wherever and whenever possible.

But getting back to the original point. The the various governments have decreed certain rules which shall be obeyed IF one wishes to travel via commercial air, and they have the muscle (guns) to enforce these rules. I frankly find these rules offensive, and refuse to travel via commercial air. There is nowhere I need be be that quickly that I cannot drive my own car, enjoy the trip, and not have to worry about renting a vehicle when I get there. And I will not be disarmed in the process.

"Now understand something. I have carried a firearm for most of my adult life. In all of those years, I never once had to draw it. I never went out spoiling for a fight, but I was always prepared to end one if I had to. And I was always unfailingly courteous and polite, since it was always my intent to avoid trouble, wherever and whenever possible."

Now here is why we will never see eye to eye on this subject. I have never carried a gun in my life. I have never seen a gun pointed at another human being. I have never been threatened with a gun. I have never been robbed, my house has never been broken into, my car has never been stolen and the same can be said for most of my family, friends and aquaintances. I have lived my entire adult life in a major city of over 3 million people, Montreal so its not that I live in the boonies. There are less than ten cities in the U.S. larger than Montreal. This is my entire point, there is something else going on the U.S.A. that makes Americans want to shoot each other. THAT is what we should be looking for. Treat the problem not the symptom.

One good theory I heard was to look at the differences in our 2 countries history. When the U.S.A. "went west" they sent out the gunslingers and settlers first. The sheriffs and commerce came later. In Canada the west was tamed by companies first, and commerce works better in an ordered society so the police went with the companies. The settlers came later. But that is history, what is so different now that 2 countries, so closely linked in almost every way can be so different at their core?

"so closely linked in almost every way"

I disagree strongly here. Y'all are much more closely aligned to the European state socialism model than us freedom loving rowdies here in the US, especially in Quebec.

I would postulate that you are closely linked to Mother England and have legacy ties to France rooted in loyalty and, arguably, fealty to the crown(s). We (US) are rooted in rebellion and total freedom.

Just speculating

Hooker

You might find that the first time you or one of your loved ones are a victim of a violent crime your worldview might just change 180 degrees.

There is a joke about how to change the mind of an avowed pacifist, while it is intended to be humorous, it does have a small grain of truth.

First, as soon as the pacifist starts saying there is NEVER an excuse for violence, haul off and punch them as hard as you can in the nose. when they regain consiousness, they will naturally want to come off the floor and deck you, stop them and remind them that they just got through saying that there is never an excuse for violence, once you've got them nodding and agreeing again, punch them in the nose again. Lather rinse repeat until they come to realize that some people are uncivilized and just like beating the hell out of you and no amount of pacifism will protect you from them, you have to punch them before they punch you.

A pacifist is just a future gun owner that hasn't been robbed or raped yet.

Good thing this isn't a political discussion

Actually, it was pretty much a political discussion from it's inception.

Good answer from me, old son.

Unfortunately, it is no longer politically correct to teach your children about guns and gun safety, as I was taught by my father, uncles, grandfathers, etc, and as I taught my children. Which is the why of your main point.

BTW, do I rate a Transcendia passport?

I read somewhere today that an Airport Security Officer who had been repeatedly ribbed about the small size of his penis revealed to his co-workers by the Full-body Scanner, had lost it and attacked his co-workers.

I've had some misconceptions about life, and one was that after people graduated from High School they would more act like adults. Ignorant and rude behavior appalls me for I imagine a world and culture where good manners are so well inculcated into the society, that few actual laws are required. Such a society is so much dependent on education and internally hardwired ethics as to be a dreamers hobble in too much of the world.

You have to admit that Ben Franklin at least left us the Public Library System, and did have a life of the mind vision for the US. Course you also have to note he was a printer, and was secure financially due to the printing of money. Typically whatever sorts of things Ben Franklin endorsed, I defer to him.

I do need to reread the Federalist Papers. I used to spend a good deal of time reading law on the Yale Avalon Law Project. Significant readings available there are The International Space Treaty, and the Geneva Conventions. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is good, though not so far really worth the paper it is written on.

Currently across the board we are in a time of what has been called Globalization. Urbanization has overtaken all since still, you have to be there, especially if picking it up and putting it down is all you are fit to do.

There is work that is both hard on the body, and on the mind, that is simply not respected enough. I appreciate Chicago for out there when they start killing people and blowing things up, its about work. Studs Terkel did some great work in that town, and last time I was there, there were college course on the TV.

Streeterville is interesting, though I have read two versions of the story, and one is Streeter is heroic, and in another he is a lowlife.

Legitimate nations control violence. Vices are to also be controlled. Sociologists are correct when they say you cannot legislate folkways. What this means is that all vices endemic to the human pursuit of happiness are stone cold stupid to make illegal as proved by the Prohibition era of the US.

Where the secular state becomes superior to the theocracy is in the fact that what is moral to one religion, may well be unethical. If we really confront rights, we must confront the equal rights of women. Men go out to war and kill on battlefield, in ditches, or back alleys for love and reason.

Women have the territory within them, and if they want, or need an abortion, no matter what my morality, or beliefs, or desires, I ethically must concede their right to kill what is inside of them, if they want. As a man, different from them, never really to face the choice myself in the way they do, I have no choice but to accede to their right.

I am way for privacy and say often that "Fame without money sucks." So far everyday I am hiding in the open, and glad I'm not very famous. You know you're famous when you have been cartooned. Somewhere there is a cartoon Kaplin did of me on CR4. Took him about 15 minutes to find my face on facebook, and put it on another body, and add a mullet. Normally I look like a gentleman. A mullet haircut is not my style. I do like Hawiian shirts though.

Where was I?

The Full-body Scanners have now a record of enabling childish behavior in that they have made pretty women more targets of the tech search, invasion of privacy, and caused a fist fight among staff who ridiculed a co-workers penis size.

Maybe I ought not put such a machine on the Transcendian purchase list if that's all its good for?

The corporatization of control of your freedoms is one of the trends in the US that mocks the government as any real trustworthy power. Forget about States Rights. Their nothing compared to the way "Private Property" gets to change the laws. Soon as the State says it is legal to carry your pistol many a bank puts on the door a sign saying it's not. What is legal either by state or federal law is often abrogated by corporations and towns. Insurance companies want everybody sitting down and not moving at all till they drop dead at a profit, so really they want everything illegal and invest in private prison stocks with the intent of putting everybody in jail.

Well by everybody, we mean regular people, not themselves.

A Mister Clock at Liberty Mutual once told me that he would reduce insurance premiums for sheetrock moving companies if they used exoskeletons like the HAL, for sheetrock delivery, since they had to pay out a lot for that, as disability from the work ran to 70 percent.

Your lowest Workman's Comp Policies are for the Clerk categories of employees. You simply aren't a real company if you don't carry insurance, and since the insurance companies run the world, and particularly the US, it is no wonder nothing is to be done. At least Loyds of London will insure mercenaries.

It is noted that Mr. Brown kept the UK out of the Euro. Last I knew the UK had abandoned the drug war a good while back specifically by giving addicts heroin and cocaine, though since pot isn't addictive, I don't think they give that away. Thought the point was to keep the Mob out.

Where was I?

Should I buy a Full Body Scanner or not? I think it would be a moneymaker if I bought one and put it in a Mall, and charged 10 bucks a pop for couples to go into and be photographed and XRayed, and get a framed picture to take home and hang on the wall, or carry with them when going to the airport for a ride. Yep, they are delightful, I want one to play with!

Oh yeah, but I forgot, they are XRay machines. Damn, you're not supposed to expose yourself to a lot of X Rays for your personal health. As a Photobooth the warning label may not be good for business.

Politically correct is dependent on your locale. Virginia just passed a law allowing the NRA Eddie Eagle program to be taught in elementary schools.

See HERE

'bout time, IMO. My Dad, a WWII vet, tossed me into the NRA and its shooting and gun safety programs when I was about 8 years old. And, no, he didn't give me a choice about it.

Hooker