A romantic vacation love story ... for women, by a woman
He grasped me firmly but gently just above my elbow and guided me into a room, his room. He quietly shut the door and we were alone.
He approached me soundlessly, from behind, and spoke in a low, reassuring voice close to my ear, "Just relax please."
Without warning, he reached down, and I felt his strong, calloused hands start at my ankles, gently probing, and moving upward along my calves slowly but steadily. My breath caught in my throat. I knew I
should be afraid, but somehow I didn't care. His touch was so experienced, so sure. When his hands moved up onto my thighs, I gave a slight shudder, and partly closed my eyes, my pulse pounding. I felt his knowing fingers caress my abdomen, my ribs, and when he cupped my full breasts in both hands, I inhaled sharply.
Probing, searching, knowing what he wanted, he brought his hands to my shoulders, slid them down my tingling spine and to my panties.
Although I knew nothing about this man, I felt oddly trusting and expectant. This is a man, I thought. A man who takes charge. A man not used to taking `no' for an answer. A man who would tell me what he wanted. A man who could look into my soul and say....
"Okay, I'm done."
My eyes snapped open and he was standing in front of me, smiling, holding out my purse...
"You can board your flight now."
(Inspired by the TSA "pat downs")
Print This Post
We are being herded like sheep through airport security with Big Brother subjecting us to privacy robbing humiliating inspections either through digital means (and irradiating us as well) or multiple digit means (government sanctioned sexual assault). This is government imposed soft tyranny all in the name of security where we are all supposed to be treated equally.
There is an element of subjectivity that allows for inappropriate targeting of victims (see Baywatch babe for example) which clearly violates one’s personal rights.
The Obama Administration and Democrats support this egalitarian approach so as not to offend “Muslims” – the same group of people who have been shown to have a near total monopoly worldwide on terrorism.
They are blatantly stating that it is OK to offend, humiliate and violate the rights of tens of millions of innocent American travelers instead!
This is an abhorrent and perverse abuse government power and we should not continue to acquiesce.
Outrageous as this is, new evidence reveals that we have been duped all along regarding the true level of true security realized by these combined approaches despite the abuses and dehumanizing sacrifices that we have had to make in return. Independent research has revealed that these scanners can miss massive quantities of explosives such as PETN which could easily be smuggled aboard a plane and used to cause catastrophic damage.
The following article details these findings and the false sense of security that the scanners provide.
Journal Article: New Graphic TSA Scanners May Not Detect Powerful Explosive
Jonathon M. Seidl December 12, 2010
A new peer-reviewed journal article by a pair of University of California-San Francisco researchers reveals that the TSA’s new x-ray body scanners may not be as safe as the government agency wants the public to think. In fact, the scanners might not even detect pancake-sized bombs containing PETN, the explosive used in the failed “underwear bomb” last Christmas.
According to Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson in the Journal of Transportation Security, the scanners could miss PETN bombs if they were taped to a person’s body in a flattened, rounded manner.
The researches write about their findings in the article “An evaluation of airport x-ray backscatter units based on image characteristics.”
From the introduction:
We show that the body is exposed throughout to the incident x-rays, and that although images can be made at the exposure levels claimed (under 100 nanoGrey per view), detection of contraband can be foiled in these systems. Because front and back views are obtained, low Z materials can only be reliable detected if they are packed outside the sides of the body or with hard edges, while high Z materials are well seen when placed in front or back of the body, but not to the sides. Even if exposure were to be increased significantly, normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosive with tapered edges difficult if not impossible to detect.
The article goes on to explain the pancake explosive theory:
It is very likely that a large (15–20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology, ironically, because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy. Thus, a third of a kilo of PETN, easily picked up in a competent pat down, would be missed by backscatter “high technology”. Forty grams of PETN, a purportedly dangerous amount, would fit in a 1.25 mm-thick pancake of the dimensions simulated here and be virtually invisible. Packed in a compact mode, say, a 1 cm×4 cm×5 cm brick, it would be detected.
The article, as is common in journals, is rather technical. But the conclusion remains: the “backscatter” technology has its limits and its loopholes, and may not be the savior of airport security.
The Washington Times goes as far as to call the new scanners a “fraud” in an editorial last week.
“Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano insists the public should trust her when she says the expensive airport scanners are safe and effective,” the editorial says. “Until now, there has been no way to verify this claim because the TSA and the scanner manufacturers have cloaked key operational data behind a veil of purported ‘national security.’”
The researchers pointed out that the manufacturers of airport scanners positioned contraband like guns, knives and drugs in unnatural ways to conceal the limitations of their device. For example, the simulated drugs are always packed into tight rectangles that show up distinctly on the machine. TSA employees would have a far more difficult time spotting less tidy terrorists. “The eye is a good signal averager at certain spatial frequencies, but it is doubtful that an operator can be trained to detect these differences unless the material is hard-edged, not too large and regular shaped,” Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Carlson wrote.
The editors’ conclusion calls for the scanners to be scrapped:
In the end, this false sense of security creates a blindness that real terrorists will exploit. Continuing to rely on this fundamentally flawed technological crutch makes air travel more dangerous. The plug must be pulled on these invasive and ineffective machines.
Print This Post