Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?

lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

[general_re]

Huh?!

Just thinking of a thread a while back, wherein you made what was essentially a libertarian argument for several rounds, and then closed with "BTW, I'm not a libertarian". Quack, quack ;)

And does the Constitution fit into this equation anywhere, or is that irrelevant?

The Constitution is as meaningful or as meaningless as we all decide it is. In the end, it can't protect us from ourselves.

[general_re]

As such, I'd go heavier on the profiling side (not just ethnically, either, but on all aspects of a scientifically valid profile), and probably go a little easier on weapons in general. If it means that a terrorist slips by with a weapon, it would also mean that the other passengers are armed as well, and so his effectiveness would be, shall we say, diminished.

Why go easier on weapons in general? While I think the premises and conclusions are rather questionable, you can at least make an argument that armed passengers could prevent a takeover of the airplane. But that presumes that this is necessarily the goal of the suspect - if Richard Reid had his s*** together, instead of trying to light his shoes with a pack of matches, it's difficult to see how his fellow passengers could have prevented him from blowing up the plane, armed or no. In that case, the best solution would seem to be to prevent him from boarding in the first place.

[RGSpincich]

The funny thing is, I was going to accuse bg of being a ME male, aged such and such with plans to attack using a middle aged white pregnant woman... LOL

[Inkie]

I didn't think the airlines allowed advanced ladies to board, lest they be liable. Yes, all of those problems would indeed be aggravating.

[Romulus]

I've had two babies and I know all about this, thrust me.

Um...no thanks.

[dcwusmc]

It's most assuredly NOT about not fighting back. The question arises, who is better qualified and more motivated to provide for our security, We, the People, or some FedGov thug providing cosmetic "security" at an airport? My money's on We, the People. All I want from FedGov is to get the flock out of our way. Honor the BoR (with emphasis on the Second Amendment) and we will not have stories such as this one. Hell's fire, if we had not been denied our rights prior to 9-11, we would not even be having this conversation... yet you want to have more FedGov "security" which only insures that there will be more incidents like this one and more bureaucraps like the ones who DID this. But that's jake with you, right? As long as YOU'RE not inconvenienced by somebody who takes his freedoms seriously... Obviously you and a lot like you don't take freedom seriously... so what freedom you have left you owe to people who DO make noise and fight back.

[ChemistCat]

I flew overseas 7-1/2 months pregnant when my husband was stationed in Germany. I had to have a doctor's note that my pregnancy was not complicated before I was allowed to fly.

(NOT that it was comfortable--it wasn't.)

A previous post (can't find it now) said that handling the breasts of a pregnant woman can induce labor. A woman already having early labor should avoid it, as it can intensify contractions, but anyone who has gone past her due date has probably had her husband try this--and believe me, it doesn't work as well as one would hope. At nine months gone, it isn't even FUN! Eating pizza is more strongly statistically linked to inducing labor than sexual foreplay is. Late pregnancy is so uncomfortable, but alas, nature has not made it easy to start labor without medical intervention!

A big shock can definitely cause pre-term labor, but doesn't necessarily. Marianne Pearl's beautiful baby came on time, and I can't think of anyone who has had a worse shock during pregnancy than she did, God bless her. (Daniel Pearl's widow, for those of you who can't place the name.)

I agree with those who say that it's rather absurd to blame a C-section on having had a bad shock. Nevertheless, some doctor or nurse may have made it easier for him to draw that faulty conclusion--it need not be one he reached without authority confirming it. Honestly, I can't see being in the same room with this man and not being forced to admit it was possible. If one of my babies had flipped to breech during an altercation, yeah, I'd have blamed my adversary! It's not rational but it is reasonable. I also think that it is the obligation of men to protect pregnant women from shocks ANYWAY...and that includes security agents as well as husbands. Anybody who makes things harder on a pregnant woman unnecessarily deserves to die a horrible death (she says, not quite facetiously.)

[babygene]

Boy, I'ed sure trade being 18 - 40 for being ME.

[unspun]

Interesting post.

Are we still agruing over this, though?

Is it that big a deal? Sucks, I've been to O'Hare airport three times, started fights, gotten arrested and put in jail three times since this article was posted.

(Maybe it got to me, too.)

I'm going back! This time, with spring loaded snakes under my belt buckle!!

[unspun]

Hm... I meant "Shucks," not... well....

[ChemistCat]

Yeah, I guess we're all just ready to roll over and show the belly (literally!) to anyone employed by the government, any time, any place. I draw the line at peeing on the floor in total submission though. Going to need to see a few more jackboots before I'll go that far....

(Here post picture of my dog, whose previous owner abused her enough that she never will understand she doesn't have to cringe if someone within three city blocks is angry at anyone.)

We'll get used to it.

[dcwusmc]

I, for one, do NOT support "law enforcement." There are too many people with the mindset that, if it's the law it must be mindlessly obeyed and just as mindlessly enforced. This is the self-same mindset that would gladly turn over left-handed red heads if the law said they must be "euthanized." I support the enforcement of rules which provide for the protection of the equal rights of ALL, as our Republic was established to do. But "law enforcement" has come to mean OBEY US OR ELSE and THAT no one in their right mind can support. When it becomes a crime to express your ire at abuse of authority or when a gun owner who is entrapped into a paper violation of NFA gets a longer jail sentence than a killer or any of these other "laws" are enforced on us instead of FedGov or the several States protecting ALL of us, there is no way I can support "law enforcement." No POSSIBLE way. {more coming}

[dcwusmc]

If we still had PEACE OFFICERS who did not view everyone on their beat as potential "law breakers" that would be fine. If we still had cops that walked a beat and KNEW people there and would talk to people, smack a kid upside the head if they caught him misbehaving and LOOKED OUT FOR their "clientele," I could support that 1000%. But now the cops are federalized and militarized and LEO-ized til Hell wouldn't have it and we, the People, are screwed again.

[dcwusmc]

Supposedly not but why'd you even give it to them? Only thing they NEED to know is how many people live there, period. And that only once every 10 years. NOTHING else is needed or should be offered. The Constitution says ENUMERATE once a decade.

[dcwusmc]

Why would the Constitution NOT apply to searches at airports? (Be specific.) And I fought for it and HONOR it. For over 22 years in uniform.

[eastforker]

My point being,From what I understand,this info is not to be shared with any other agency in the past.Has that changed with the homedefense act.One other thing they asked was what time we left for work in the morning.This 60'sh woman had proper U.S. Census credentials it seems,then I started to wonder if visiting certain jihad websites had anything to do with it.All kind of crazy things enter your head.For some reason or other I think I am up for some Federal investigation of some sort,for what,I have no Idea.

[HairOfTheDog]

Well, I argued it here on a couple of levels for the 400 more posts that followed that one. Forgive me for being lazy, but I have already talked this one out!

On one level, because it is an option to travel by air, not a right. You buy a ticket, that is a contract that says you can't carry weapons, and that they may search you to confirm it.

And secondly because I think national security demands that we treat airports very much the same as a border crossing. our security certainly has been threatened by our own domestic planes. Functionally, it is no different between any other kind of port of entry, even if your flight is domestic. I had a few posts that expanded on that.

[unspun]

You may have heard of "Things to Do at Wal-Mart?"

We should work on "Things to Do at the Airport Security Station...."

Most of those guys do have an IQ and a heart, of course (and it's Chrstimas).

Hmmm.... I wonder what the Marx brothers would do at the Portland airport?

What in the world is the Portland airport called, anyway. Anyone go there? If so, what for?

Oregon... wonder how Senator Packwood would enjoy an occasion with this screener lady?

[dcwusmc]

With respect to GOVERNMENT, our rights are and must be absolute. Our right to speak, to travel, to bear arms, and so forth, are absolute, else they are mere gooberment-granted privileges, to be regulated and revoked at whatever whim the local bureaucrap has... like is he constipated this morning or whatever. HOWEVER, in the PRIVATE exercise of my right to travel, I am subject to the rules of contract with another private party, should I wish to use their conveyance. It is NOT a fit and proper subject for FedGov unless fraud or coercion of some sort are involved. Same with ALL my rights. Do you see the difference or are you that wrapped up in the mantle of big gooberment that you feel IT has to grant me my daily privileges? If the latter, then you are no better than the Talibunnies or the jackasses who did 9-11.

[inquest]

Just thinking of a thread a while back, wherein you made what was essentially a libertarian argument for several rounds...

In your imagination only. It was "essentially" a pro-3rd party argument. Now I'm sure the many libertarians on this forum would be flattered to know that you consider the Libertarian Party the only third party that could ever be worthy of consideration, but it really isn't.

The Constitution is as meaningful or as meaningless as we all decide it is. In the end, it can't protect us from ourselves.

I don't think anyone on this thread believes that the Almighty Constitution (perhaps in conjunction with Univ*) will rise up and smite down any heathen government officials that don't abide by its Commandments. What I'm interested in knowing is if it matters to you whether their actions violate the Constitution.