Perversion at the Airport

You may know that, a month or two ago, the TSA enacted new security measures: the Naked Scanners and the pat-downs. Can you say "wrong" in every language of the world?

Let's start with the Naked Scanners, which basically show you naked to complete strangers and may also poison you.

Shall we?

I don't think nudity is inherently wrong. Those people in Africa who go around naked because it's hot and they're poor and it's their culture and their equally-naked neighbors won't drool over them for it? They're not doing anything wrong. Even American nudists aren't necessarily doing anything wrong. In fact, they have a right to be Nudists if they want. God made us naked, we were born naked, it's our natural state. But in a Western society like the US, nakedness is almost exclusively associated with sex in anyone over the age of 10. It just is. And clothes are associated with decency, dignity, and class. They just are. They have been for thousands of years, and it's not going to change any time soon. It certainly won't change the second a person sets foot in an airport. If that person is wearing clothes, odds are they perceive nudity and clothing in the ways I stated before. Can the government rightly strip that person of what they consider their dignity and expose what they consider their sexuality? No! It's cruel. That person probably views clothes as psychologically comforting and nudity as humiliating. As they scan that person, the CLOTHED TSA worker probably views it the same way: clothes are a security blanket and nudity is erotic. Can the government rightly grant the TSA the authority to look at a person like they're a porn star? No! Even if the TSA worker is grossed out or sympathetic to the stripped person, it's because that person has been exposed, and it's altogether possible the TSA worker is a pervert who will milk the person's exposure for all the titillation it's worth. No hack government worker looks at a naked person objectively like a trained doctor (hopefully) looks at them.

Now, let's move on to the pat-downs. Unlike with nudity, there's no question of culture. It's pretty unanimous. When people touch each other's genitals, it's sexual activity through and through. And it's wrong to force such touching on someone. Namely, complete strangers at the AIRPORT. (I'm not talking about parents changing their babies' diapers, or again, doctors doing what they do.) Can the government rightly force sexual acts on a person? No! That's molestation! And wrong in every possible way.

I saw a story about a man who underwent a pat-down and was left covered in his urine because he has a medical condition or something that directs his urine to a pouch in his stomach with a sort of cork in it. A TSA worker knocked the cork out, didn't apologize, and sent the man on his way. There was a big to-do about that. The TSA chief apologized to the man, who said it was his "worst nightmare" and humiliating. (The man's daughter pleaded with the TSA workers to do their job. "We all want you to do your job." She wants to be safe when she travels with her son, but she wants the TSA workers to do their with some "human compassion." Um, sorry. You can't molest people with human compassion. It's just not possible.) Well, a lot of people consider it just as humiliating to be molested or seen naked. A lot of people consider it their worst nightmare. A lot of people consider it their worst nightmare that it might happen to their KIDS. A lot of people would probably RATHER be soaked in urine than molested. I don't think the TSA workers apologized to those people either, and I'm CERTAIN the TSA chief didn't. Why did the urine-soaked man get an apology for something no more humiliating or traumatizing than what the other people had to go through? Because it wasn't an official part of the security process. That's all.

I can see a future where it IS an official part of process to soak people in urine, and THEN they won't apologize for that either. The government will concoct some bogus reason such as how you could store explosives in your system and let them build up in your urine till you used the restroom. They'll make everyone who wants to fly get a urine-pouch like that man's, and an hour before you get on the plane, you'll be required let your urine flow out onto your clothes. And even the chief won't apologize for it. "What?" you say. "Urine-soaked airplane travelers? Unthinkable!" That's what I would have told YOU about the airport screenings and pat-downs. Before they actually happened.

And why would they do this? This urine-soaking-- I mean, screenings and pat-downs? They want to prevent something like the underwear bomber of last Christmas. First of all, it probably won't work. I've read lots of comments on how it can fail. Secondly, I suppose it's out of the question to train security to watch the passengers for someone lighting himself on fire. As is keeping an eye on someone who buys his ticket with cash, has no passport, spends 20 minutes in the airplane bathroom, and suspiciously covers himself with a blanket when he comes back out. Instead, they sexually harass ordinary people in the airport. Well, they know what they're doing. . . (That was sarcasm.) Thirdly, look how the underwear bomber incident turned out. It was okay! There was no big explosion, another PASSENGER subdued the bomber, and no one but the bomber got hurt. It wasn't even airport security, wasn't even the government that took out the bomber. (Well, flight attendants helped put out the fire, but they don't count, do they?) I'm sure that makes them just livid, knowing we didn't need them to save us. With that in mind, it sounds like revenge against us common folk for them to feel inside people's underwear.

Airplanes were bombed in the previous century too. And other places are bombed, not just airplanes. Yet, somehow, the US still stands. It's BEEN standing for a couple centuries now, without the government molesting people. Nevertheless, they now feel in their kindly hearts that they need to sexually harass the American people for our own good. In years to come, I see them ordering you not to wear clothes when it's warm enough to avoid hypothermia, making the walls of all restrooms see-through so you don't have the privacy to scheme against them, patting you down and dissecting you at the doors of Walmart, and politely ordering you to have your fingers removed before boarding a plane so you can't pull a trigger. All in the name of "security."

Even then, I'm sure a few little people will cry out that the government is their friend, the government is protecting them, the government should do more against the terrorists. Because the terrorists will keep finding ways.

That's true. Terrorists will keep finding ways. No matter what anyone does, people can't protect themselves from everything all the time and terrorists will keep finding cracks in the defense systems. You have the right to try and be safe, but at a certain point, you have to live, trust God, and stop trying so frantically to save yourself that you commit heinous wrongs. The TSA measures are wrong. Touching children is wrong. Humiliating and psychologically breaking people is wrong. Soaking people in urine is wrong. Cutting off their fingers is wrong.

Lots of people are outraged about the TSA measures, but the few that aren't seem to get more press, which really bugs me. (That and National Opt-out day failed.) A few people easily prefer sexual assault to death, likely because sexual immorality (adultery, casual dating, etc.) is such a part of their lives already (and such a famous part of our culture because they're so loud and noticeable). I try not to force my beliefs on such people because I know it will only make me look self-righteous and won't convince them of my points. But when THEY try to force their beliefs on ME, when they force (or encourage forcing) people to submit to molestation rather than die when those people would rather have it the other way around, when they expect me to put my life before my morals and dignity and beliefs and psychological health and feelings and freedom from oppression...When they do that, I start to hate them.

The Gladly Molested are probably perverts who like being touched or cowards who are that afraid of death. Do they expect sexual assault by the TSA will keep them safe from death? It may or may not. Probably won't. But if it does, do they realize they'll be safe from death but prey to sexual assault? Do they realize the government probably won't stop there? Do they realize they'll be safe from death but prey to everything else?

Why are they so afraid to die?

Because they're making such a difference in the world? They're letting, perhaps encouraging, complete strangers to abuse them.

Because they're afraid to, what, go to hell? They're on the fast track to LIVING in hell.

This is not the way our founding fathers wanted it, people! In the immortal words of a great American patriot whose name I can't remember (JK, Patrick Henry), "Give me liberty or give me death!" It's not liberty to be legally molested by government workers. I'd rather be illegally killed by terrorists. Literally.

Believe it or not, some things are more important than your life.