Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
bjbj Announcer: The David Pakman Show at www.DavidPakman.com. David Pakman: So on Monday we talked about
the TSA hypocrisy that's going on, Louis, with a lot of conservatives angry that Barack
Obama might've personally not only allowed for but wanted the new body scanners that
we're seeing at some airports including our local airport in Hartford. And WorldNetDaily
ran a story, which we talked about, Louis, that suggested Obama personally is the guy
who wanted those and Obama personally wanted these aggressive... what are they called,
patdowns, now, that you can opt out for? Louis Motamedi: Right. David: And the obvious question
is well, even if you believe that he did, it's Michael Chertoff who, as the head of
Homeland Security, actually ordered the first batch of these, some people are calling them
the "*** scanners", because pictures showing essentially everything are not only being
saved, which we were told the pictures aren't saved, they're floating around the internet.
And you know, it's amazing, not that I tried this, obviously, Louis, I would never think
to, but I've been told if you use a negative effect in like Photoshop or Gimp or whatever
software you use, it will turn it into a positive and you can really see everything. And I know
Louis is taking careful notes because this is the first thing he'll do after the show.
Louis: Yeah, right. David: That's not how it was intended to be used, is it? Louis:
No. David: Or maybe it was, I don't know. In any event, Michael Chertoff, as the head
of Homeland Security, ordered the first batch of these from a company called Rapiscan Systems.
After he left his position at the Homeland Security Department, he gave a ton of interviews
where he was using his government credentials to promote the device. You know what's coming
here. What he didn't tell people is that Rapiscan is one of his consulting clients from the
Chertoff Group. So nobody's going to be surprised by that, are they, first of all? That we're
completely aware of. The hypocrisy comes in that it was the conservatives who, after 9/11,
said hey, we need the PATRIOT Act, and I don't care what we need to do to keep everybody
safe, and we need to do it now, and by the way, we also need private industry to help.
And this is an example of that, right? These body scanners are an example of doing whatever
is necessary through private industry, Rapiscan Systems, a client of the Chertoff Group, to
keep people safe. But wait a second, Barack Obama might've wanted the scans? Barack Obama
might've wanted aggressive groin-touching during the patdowns? Louis: Well, maybe Obama
did want them, but he didn't want them so that he could look at people's junk. He might've
wanted them so... David: To keep people safe. Louis: Keep people safe. David: Right. So
now the buzz is, we're implying Barack Obama is somehow a pervert. You know, the real question
is... there's a lot of questions here, and the number of concerns are countless. One
concern is we're not even checking for chemicals. When we use the body scan, we're not checking
for possible explosives. It actually makes it easier to get through security with residues
or possible different types of explosives that the body scan will not actually pick
up. That is one concern. Another concern is the latitude that is being allowed in some
of these patdowns. And some are saying hey, let's blame Obama for that too, or let's blame
Democrats for that. But let's be honest with ourselves here. What is the origin of wanting
these patdowns? The origin is coercing people into just accepting the body scan, right?
If you make the patdown as least pleasurable, maybe that's not the right word to use, but
at least enjoyable... I don't even know. If you make it an invasive procedure... Louis:
If you make it an uncomfortable experience... David: Right. You are going to make people
more likely to say, "You know what? I'll just get the body scan," which, by the way, is
an X-ray. People who are undergoing treatment for melanoma, for example, should not be going
through that body scan. So we are putting some people who are already being treated
for diseases in the hands, and apparently the very aggressive hands... Louis: Well,
X-rays are harmful to anyone and everyone. David: Right, but there are certain groups
particularly who should not be going through them, which we know. So now this is going
to open up a lot of different doors. The patdowns are coercion to get people to go with the
X-rays. Now, here's another question. Aren't parents supposed to teach their kids that
there's only two people that can touch you down there, you and your doctor... Louis:
And a TSA agent. David: Well, that's where I'm going. You and your doctor when Mommy
and Daddy are there. But now we have to explain, well, hold on a second, because we're not
going to do the body scan, we're actually... the TSA man, which now the TSA, we've already
got enough problems with TSA agents on the phone, on cell phones while people are walking
the wrong way through security, touching people who knows where. Now the TSA man, he can also
touch you down there. Louis: Well, I don't think kids are going to be scarred for life
if the TSA agent pats them down. David: I disagree. These aggressive patdowns could
be very confusing, Louis, very disconcerting. I mean, a lot of your tendency to the violent
video games may be from an aggressive patdown you received when you were flying home from
Florida at age four. Louis: I doubt that. David: And this just goes on and on. So do
not be confused about the fact that there is significant hypocrisy here. At-any-cost,
safety-is-the-number-one-concern conservatives from the days of the PATRIOT Act are now all
of a sudden very concerned that Barack Obama is personally perverted because of these body
scans, but Michael Chertoff really, we should call these Chertoff scanners, is the guy who
is going to make, I believe he's already very wealthy, make himself even wealthier with
the *** scanner, is he not? Louis: He might. But I mean, generally I think it's still about
safety. I don't think we should be talking about his income, really. I mean, these are
going to make flying safer, are they not? David: No, I don't know that they will, because
like I said, these are being used in lieu of other types of scanning. So for example,
this is not checking for chemicals. You can put explosives... you can put them in your
body... Louis: Do you know how much money it's going to cost to get scanners or any
type of thing that checks for chemicals? David: What I'm saying, Louis, is that at many airports
they're using this instead of swabbing the inside of your shoes or your hands, which
I have done before, and then running that through the chemical testing machine. The
body scanner is being used as a quick alternative to other tests that could be done. This, by
the way, is a completely separate issue from the fact that, hold on a second, what about
focusing on the agents instead of on technology? What about going the El Al route, Louis, which
you are all too familiar with, that is used in Israel for all airlines and also by El
Al in other parts of the country when people are flying on their airline which is, let's
look the person in the eye, "Who do you know in Israel? Where are you staying?" observing
people and using more of a behavior profile than just relying on the *** scanner and
then floating negatives of people's privates around the internet. Louis: Right. David:
What about putting some money there? Louis: I mean, what they do is similar to what someone
at the border, at the Canadian border, would be doing. But think about how long it would
take if we had agents talking, having a short discussion with every person who passes through
security. David: But you can do it in layers, as is done in Tel Aviv. I mean, there is one
kind of staging that is a couple of miles outside of the airport or whatever, a half-mile,
and then there's another when you actually are parking. You can stagger it... I mean,
come on, Louis... Louis: So, look, the traffic coming in and out of Ben Gurion is nothing
compared to, say, the traffic coming in and out of JFK. David: Is that a reason... Louis:
Or Dullus or International. David: Hold on a second. But I thought the concern was safety
above all else. Louis: It's safety, but you also have to be somewhat practical. David:
OK. Well, let me tell you, this scan is not enhancing our safety for a number of reasons
on the whole, and it also is... Louis: Irradiating us. David: That's for sure. Alternet had an
article... And if we have to move on, let me know. I'll go through these, their seven
creepiest things about the *** scanners. Number one, the scanner operators can see
everything, including pads and tampons. Number two, naked passenger images are easily saved
and spread on the internet, and not only is that possible, it's happened. I pulled some
up earlier today, and they were compelling, I have to tell you. Number three, they could
give you cancer. Number four, if you refuse to go through one, you could be publicly groped,
as we know. You could wind up with a hefty fine for refusing to be scanned. The TSA has
opened an investigation targeting John Tyner who refused to be scanned and was subjected
to a so-called "enhanced patdown". When he told the TSA agent not to, quote, "touch [his]
junk", he was kept from getting on his flight and now faces prosecution and an $11,000 fine.
Six, they are fueling homophobia in brand-new ways. Our friends over at Americans for Truth
About Homosexuality, we hope to have Peter LaBarbera back on soon, is saying that we
need to make sure that there aren't gay TSA agents allowed to use these scans. I mention
that one in jest, but the reality is, it is fueling additional homophobia, and some are
saying it's a waste of money. The House voted down the use of body scanners, but the TSA
ignored the rule of Congress and bought them anyway, wasting millions in stimulus funds.
A number of reasons, Louis, why this is concerning. And my last note: What happened to the Fourth
Amendment and the constitutional conservatives? Here's the text of the Fourth Amendment, Louis.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons..." What does that mean? Your body.
And this, to me, is not evidence that anybody is secure in their person. If there is so
much concern about how am I going to be touched by the TSA? Which, again, is just coercion
to go through the body scanner. Louis: But that could've been a concern of anyone since
the security changes after 9/11. David: No, certainly. Louis: Yeah. David: But what I'm
saying is the same people who now are expressing outrage about Obama's perversion are the ones
who were saying hey, at any cost we need security, so certainly hypocrisy there. gdmo gdmo gdmo
gdmo Announcer: The David Pakman Show at www Guerreiro Chavier Marisel Normal Guerreiro
Chavier Marisel Microsoft Office Word Windows uE Announcer: The David Pakman Show at www
tulo Documento Microsoft Office Word MSWordDoc Word.Document.8