Breaking: 66 Percent of Americans Favor Full-Body Scans, Wearing Underwear on the Outside

How did we not see this one coming? It was there right in front of our goddamn faces for almost 40 years, back when Woody Allen was intentionally funny: The solution to the problems posed by the underwear bomber.

More to the point, we are a nation of idjits:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support the new full-body security-screening machines at the country's airports, as most say they put higher priority on combating terrorism than protecting personal privacy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But half of all those polled say enhanced pat-down searches go too far.

Which means, I guess, that half of Americans feel that the pat-downs don't go far enough.

More here.

Click on the vid below to have your ears assaulted by one of the lamest No. 1 songs of the 1970s (move over, "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree," "Kung-Fu Fighting," and "Star Wars Theme/Cantina Band"). Or, more precisely, a cover version of one of the worst No. 1 songs of all time. For those of us who remember the 1970s, this is why we hate Chuck Berry (the stories that came out later about the King of the Duck Walk's toilet cams in his "Southern Air" restaurant and a class-action lawsuit brought by 60 unwitting customers caught on tape using the bathroom didn't help).

Go here for a list of recent Reason.tv TSA-related vids.

Comments

[Me]

If the Washington Post says so than it must be the truth.

[Wright's Nemesis]

We're screwed. I retreat to stoicism. The American people are not ready for freedom.

[AlmightyJB]

That's 'cause they're pussies. Is there estrogen in the water supply or something? Maybe it's the lack of saturated fat dropping everyone's testosterone levels? It's just sad, whatever it is.

[Chad]

Freedom is overrated.

Also... externalities.

[pmains]

Yes, there is, in fact.

[AlmightyJB]

Wow! Well, at least there's an explaination:)

[AlmightyJB]

We must you be a Carl Douglas hater?

[AlmightyJB]

OH! And Chuck Berry too! That's very sad.

[Ted S.]

Terry Jacks is much worse. And he's Canadian.

And how could you forget the comedback of Neil Sedaka?

[smz]

the great thing is that when you look at their poll 53% of the people a) never fly or b) fly less than once or twice a year.

[Wright's Nemesis]

And 99% of the laws and politicians people vote in won't affect them until it's too late.

[Tulpa]

Good catch.

Note also that the poll doesn't bother to break down how opinions differed based on flying frequency.

[Mr. FIFY]

If We Ordinary Proles have to go through either being scanned with radiation, or being groped by TSA apes... then so should The Ruling Class.

That includes you, Obama. No special dispensation for you or your minions.

[shrike]

Obama is the awesome. i'm the second-smartest man on the whole planet, next to his shining greatness of course.

[Amakudari]

While I'd like to believe it's the case that non-fliers willingly submit others in the stupid, inexperienced belief that airport security theater is actually good, it's just as likely that the split is even and it's actual air travelers who support it.

[Name Nomad]

Before anyone asks, "camisa de fuerza" is the Spanish term for straightjacket.

[John]

There was another poll that said 81%. I call shenanigans. You can skew a poll about any way you want it by who you poll and how you ask the questions. This is just state run media propeganda.

[MNG]

I actually know people who have lived under regimes with state run media, and I'm betting they would like to smack movement conservatives like yourself who think it is funny to refer to our media as such.

[MNG]

Conservatism has become one big "working the ref" movement.

[John]

Like the media is the referee of anything. No one watches them and they are all going broke thanks to people having other options and their bias becoming so relentless and obvious.

Conservatives don't have to work the refs. They are the refs.

[MNG]

It's not just the media. Scientists. Academe. Any institution that doesn't push your narrative movement conservatives just cry and whine about bias.

Yup, the people that fawn over Fox and Rush Limbaugh as being "fair and balanced" and "telling it like is" cry and whine about bias. Shameless.

[John]

Yes MNG, leftists have infested most of academia and a couple of fields of science. When a leftist tells you that "science" requires this or that form of government control and intrusion, they are not to be trusted. Leftism since the French Revolution has always come dressed in the garb of fake science. Marxism called itself a science.

Yes people of any stripe's biases influence their research and opinions. And when their research always matches up perfectly and supports their politcal beliefs, the conclusions are to be viewed with skepticism.

And No MNG, appealing to authority and someone in a lab coat is not a particularly compelling form of argument. You are just a typical leftist who doesn't think anyone else has a right to an opinion or there could be reasonable differences about anything.

And I have never held up Rush Limbaugh or Fox news up as anything. Stop argueing with the people who live in your head and pay attention to what is going on here.

[MNG]

You might think conservatives might pause and ask themselves why so many intellectual fields tilt away from them. They stomp their feet and blame "infestations" and "bias." Could it be something about what conservatives push and believe that turns off so many scientists, journalists and professors? Maybe the more carefully you pay attention to things like politics, social phenomena, history, and such you find conservative memes wanting...

[Tulpa]

Please explain how paying attention to politics and social phenomena can make one find conservative (or liberal, or anarchist, or libertarian, etc) memes wanting.

History I could see (though I don't think liberal ideology fares much better) and economics is definitely going to challenge one's liberalism.

[John]

Yes MNG, the only reasonable position is the liberal position. Every libertarian and conservative is just ignoring the self evident science. That is all your 9:34 post is saying.

Fuck you you arrogant piece of shit. You have never had an honest dicussion or thought in your life. All you ever do is change the subject, attack the messanger and appeal to authority. There is a reason why I am one of the few people left on here with the patience to engage you.

[MNG]

My goodness, the guy who started this by attacking a news source that brought him poll results he did not like finishes by accusing me of attacking the messenger! Physician heal thyself!

Conservatism has been embracing anti-intellectualism for a while now. Since it has it has turned off institutions that have not always been so hostile to it as a movement. But conservatives have also acquired a whiny victimization and so when faced with this fact they just cry bias, bias, give us a seat at the table!

[sevo]

MNG|11.22.10 @ 9:34PM|#
"You might think conservatives might pause and ask themselves why so many intellectual fields tilt away from them...."

"intellectual fields"? IOWs, those who either rent-gain from the government or have never actually held a job?

[sailshonan]

Academia and science are based upon coming up with NEW theories and ideas. NEW is inherently ...NOT conservative; it's progressive. A scientist or scholar cannot get government funding by procliaming..."Earth's atmospheric temperatures are still pretty much the same and have been for thousands of years...nothing new here...so can I get a grant?" Or academics saying, "yeah, Adam Smith was pretty much right. Not much has changed since the 18th century. Where's my Nobel?" Also, conservatives by definition, rigorously test new ideas because they are probably suspicious of them (as any good scientist should be). But you won't make a name for yourself, get the publicity, and best jobs unless you come up with some theory that says Moby Dick wasn't a big whale but actually a huge ice cream sundae.

[Tulpa]

There are plenty of people who think both FoxNews and the rest of the msm are biased. It's not just a conservative spectre anymore; there has been a real change in the way the mainstream media reports over the past three years.

[John]

I know people who have lived in state run media. And they tell a different tale. Honestly, if the WAPO or NYT were state run, it is hard to see how their coverage would be much different when a Democrat is in power.

[MNG]

I read the WaPo every Sunday and they've had plenty of unflattering coverage of the Obama administration. Ask your supposed friends how much that happened in their state run media regimes.

Keep whining and working the ref John.

[Voros McCracken]

"I read the WaPo every Sunday and they've had plenty of unflattering coverage of the Obama administration."

My guess is that Pravda was much the same (though I won't argue like John that our media is as much in the tank as Pravda). If I were to be a dictator who controlled the media, I would think it silly to completely scrub all critical material from the papers. Let them hit me where I'm strongest and where I have the most support, and back me when I need it the most. This would give the appearance of an unbiased media source while really working as a support apparatus. Win, win.

[sevo]

MNG|11.22.10 @ 9:02PM|#
"I actually know people who have lived under regimes with state run media,..."

NPR?

[MNG]

"You can skew a poll about any way you want it by who you poll and how you ask the questions."

This is true. And since it is true they released who did the poll, how many they polled and how they were selected and how they asked the questions. You just don't like the result and so you're going to work the ref like Christian Laettner...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....9122902788

[John]

Thanks. lets take alook

The Transportation Security Administration is increasing its use of so-called 'full-body' digital x-ray machines to screen passengers in airport security lines. (Supporters say these machines improve the ability to spot hidden weapons and explosives, and reduce the need for physical searches.) (Opponents say these machines invade privacy by producing x-ray images of a passenger's naked body that security officials can see, and don't provide enough added security to justify this.) Which comes closer to your own view - do you support or oppose using these scanners in airport security lines? (GET ANSWER THEN ASK: Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?)

That is a bullshit question. The system doesn't improve securty. The GAO has said so and even TSA admits that it wouldn't have stopped the 12-25 bomber. But the question is worded not to show that reality. They say the opponents say the system doesn't provide enough security to justify the intrusion. That is not true. And it makes it look like the opponents just value privacy and are denying an effective system when in reality the system isn't effective at all. That question is completely worded to illicit a "go with the security" response

I would also note a majority think the groping goes to far. And seventy percent support profiling as alternative to this.

When you read the actual, poll, I don't think it indicates anything approaching what the story sells it as. But, this is what the government wants us to hear. And the WAPO writers are gald to ablige.

That is what they do. Tell people like you what they want to hear.

[MNG]

See, you just don't like the results.

You want them to read the question in your biased way. What they've tried to do is not push the respondent by putting what supporters AND opponents say about this. You want them to say "the supporters say X, but they are full of shit!" That is fairness to you. So no wonder you find reputable news sources to be unfair. It's like how sane people seem crazy to crazy people...

And their paraphrase of opponents concerns is virtually exactly what every critic of the policy I've seen has said (including Rep. Micah, the guy organizing the opt-out day, Jeffrey Goldberg).

[John]

70% support profiling in lieu of doing this.

50% think the groping goes too far regardless.

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of TSA. The only thing the poll actually says is that a majority are willing to put up with it assuming that it achieves some unspecified amount of increased security (an assumtion we know to be false). And the question is a bad question because it is based on a false assumption.

I don't understand why you are so in love with the TSA on this. Jesus is there anything the government can do while the Democrats are in power that y ou won't claim is popular and right? You really do fall right in line don't you?

[MNG]

"I don't understand why you are so in love with the TSA on this."

Ah, finding your critiques to be simplistic doesn't mean I favor the TSa policy. I oppose it John. I challenge you to find where I've ever supported the policy. In fact, I opposed the levels of security before the scanners (the taking off the shoes and stuff).

See, you're brain is so soaked in partisan frenzy your default thought to any criticism of your assertions is: WRONG TEAM, WRONG TEAM!

And you see bias around you? Sheesh!

[John]

Really MNG? You oppose it? Tell us how? Tell us your opinion of Pistole and Napolitano and Obama for doing this? Tell us how this has effected your view of Obama and the administration and whether this is upsets you enough to make you think differently about Demcorats when it comes to civil liberties?

Until you are willing to give a real critique and answer those questions, you are just being a hack saying a few words so you can pretend to be something that you are not.

[MNG]

You mean until I attack them like you do that...shows...I...what? Agree with them? Support them?

WTF kind of logic is that?

I think what you are getting at is that since I find your attacks to be puerile I must support them.

I think the policy is an invasion of privacy and panic mongering that should be stopped. I think Pistole and Obama were wrong morally to allow it and politically they are fools for staying on the wrong side of this issue.

But I'm not going to cry bias every time a poll shows people might disagree with me or if a newspaper opinion disagrees with me.

[MNG]

We know to be false? You know that security is not improved even one iota by these procedures? That's incredible. How do you know that?

Shit, I think the policy is stupid but I imagine it improves the likelihood of catching a terrorist by some amount...

Either way, every critic I've seen on the topic has made the essential point that the invasion of privacy outweighs any security improvements...

And finally why don't you see the inclusion of profiling questions as the WaPo trying to make sure it covers conservative ideas and concerns? Of course that wouldn't fit with your working the ref goal...

[John]

"You know that security is not improved even one iota by these procedures? That's incredible. How do you know that?"

yes I do. Run a google search for GAO on body scanners. You will find the report. It is unlikely it would found the 12-25 bomber. I kind of do this stuff for a living. There was a tremendous debate about these things within the departmetn. Every cop and security person I know admits they are ineffective.

No one is a bigger stop terrorist guy than I am. If these thing accomplished anything, I would probably be at odds with Reason and arguing to keep them. But they don't do a damn bit of good and totally violate people in the process.

[MNG]

How can it do absolutely no good at all? At the very least it increases the chance a potential attacker might have to undergo these procedures, and any more intense search of such a person would increase the chance of coming up with something.

I can see saying how the increase in security would be small, even very small and outweighed by the invasion. But no increase at all is what you are committed to by the above comments, and that is absurd.

[Tulpa]

MNG, you're nitpicking. A vanishingly small increase in security is just as good as none.

Not to mention that the longer lines before entering the screening area, due to these ever-more-intricate security procedures, make attractive terrorist targets themselves. (Which is why they let potential assassination targets such as Congressmen and executive officials avoid the lines)

[John]

What are they going to catch? The 12-25 bomber bomb would not have been caught by the scanner. So he would have never been groped. And even if he was, it would have taken a very intrusive grope and an alert agent to feel it.

Look at it this way, people smuggle things into prison. They are going to smuggle small amounts of liquids onto airplanes if they really want to. This program produces a neglible increase in security. So small that it is not worth considering.

[MNG]

"This program produces a neglible increase in security."

But now, at long last, you agree there is some increase. You just think it is small and outweighed by the invasion.

Just like the paraphrase in the poll you bitched about so much....

So maybe the poll was reasonably done John and you just don't like the results. And when you don't like the results you jump right away to working the ref.

[A]

The 12-25 Bomber wouldn't have been caught if they profiled Arabs or middle easterners. The same goes for the shoe bomber

[Ice Nine]

You very conveniently left out the obvious profiling of African Muslims and of people who had studied in Islamic schools in Muslim Africa and the Middle East, all of which profile to a T the 12-25 Bomber. Of course he would have been caught by sensible profiling.

[TrickyVic]

""If these thing accomplished anything, I would probably be at odds with Reason and arguing to keep them.""

Security theater is a psych game. The idea is that the more procedures in place, the less likely they will attempt that route. Sure that may mean they will try something else, but if they move to something else, security theater was effective for that specific location. At least, that the way they see it.

Personally, I don't think the cost is worth the benefit. Security was already good enough IMO.

[Mr. FIFY]

What about people on no-fly/watch lists who should not be there, MNG?

Like the political profiling done here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1329.....t-20Feb09-

...and in other bullshit places.

"Ron Paul supporter, huh? Bend over. I'll bet you have a picture of Timothy McVeigh on your wall."

[Max]

That's because Ron Paul is the biggest fucking racist on the planet, and anyone who supports him belongs in prison.

[MNG]

If a person is put on the watch because they support Ron Paul then that is indefensible. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

[Mr. FIFY]

What I'm getting at, is this:

It's not just the scenario above - it's worse than that. *Anyone* on a no-fly list that does not belong, is bullshit and it should have been fixed by now.

Which, in a way, is worse than being groped by a TSApe because the sensors pinged on the artificial knee or hip. Or being groped in general.

It's all bullshit designed to MAKE us feel all warm and secure.

[John]

I can tell you exactly what happened with these scanners. Political appointees live in terror of something happening and them being viewed as haven't done something about it. They also are suckers for contractor dog and pony shows. So the very well connected contractor who makes these scanners got in and gave a dog and pony show to the politicals at TSA and DHS and convinced them they worked a lot better than what they actually do. And that was it. The 12-25 plot just sealed the deal. The facts of whether these things worked or the conern that maybe it is a bid idea to be naked body scanning people got lost. And here we are millions of dollars later violating people and enraging the public for zero net gain in safety.

If I am not mistaken this ball got rolling under the Bush Administration. And Oh by the way, Congress appropriated the money and told TSA to buy these machines. So this is a big case of bi partisan bullshit.

Sorry if the facts go against your us versus them narrative MNG, but they do.

[MNG]

Zero net gain? WTF? Is it not possible that the images could reveal something hidden that is dangerous? If it is possible then is the likelihood has been increased of it doing so, even if the amount is small and outweighed by the invasion, even if the resources would be better put elsehwere (or is the "net" supposed to be the beginning of a weasel out through that route?)?

[John]

"Is it not possible that the images could reveal something hidden that is dangerous?"

Not much that an ordinary metal detector would not have caught. Maybe a plastic knife or implement. But that is not the threat these things were sold as preventing. In terms of bombs and bomb materials, they won't find a damn thing if the materials are hidden properly.

[TrickyVic]

""Political appointees live in terror of something happening and them being viewed as haven't done something about it. They also are suckers for contractor dog and pony shows.""

I agree.

""So this is a big case of bi partisan bullshit.""

I agree.

[Tulpa]

The fact that 53% of the respondents fly less than once a year is problematic. Such people are completely unaffected by both the privacy encroachment AND any potential terrorist attack on a plane. They should have broken down the responses by flying frequency.

I'd bet good money that at least 85% of the people who don't fly at least once a year support the scanners, which would mean a minority of people who fly at least once a year support them.

[MNG]

Now this is a sensible point. It's not a fault of the poll, but of the data released. It would be interesting to know this.

[Tulpa]

It's not a fault of the poll, but of the data released.

Presumably, the same people who did the poll wrote the raw report, so you really can't separate the fault.

[MNG]

Yes, my point is that it doesn't show a flaw in the poll itself. It's not a flaw in the release either, it just would have been nice to have this breakout. But as a frequent poll-looker-upper I can tell you that is more rare than you might think...

[Tulpa]

The poll is meaningless without that breakdown. It's like conducting an election poll with half of the responses from people who are not eligible to vote, and then not bothering to separate them out so as to give results for only eligible voters.

I know the standards for research in poli sci aren't what I'm used to in the hard sciences, but that's pretty bad even by that low bar.

[MNG]

It's meaningless? It is what it is. It tries to get at general public opinion on the subject, not frequent flier opinion. The latter would be interesting but the former isn't meaningless without it (especially considering we are talking about what is ostensibly a government safety program that effects more than just fliers).

[Tulpa]

Please explain how it affects anyone who never flies.

[MNG]

Maybe the people that were in the World Trade center on 9/11 could answer that question for you Tulpa...

[MNG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C....._bomb_plot

"According to the U.S. and the U.K., the bombs were probably designed to detonate mid-air, with the intention of destroying both planes over Chicago or another city in the U.S."

[Tulpa]

I never heard of the C.... bomb plot.

They would have to have some seriously good timing and telemetry to explode a plane in a way that would have a good chance of harming people a mile or two below. An exploded plane doesn't just fall straight down, you know...it continues moving forward. Even if it did fall straight down it would be hard to time with just a side window view. And then you've got to deal with interference from wind and such.

[Barack Obama]

"Please explain how it affects anyone who never flies."

Oh, they'll get theirs. Patience, child.

[Tulpa]

So I take it that you, with your poli sci degree and all, would have no problem with an election poll for which half the sample wasn't even eligible to vote.

[MNG]

If I were trying to predict an election it would be a problem. But if I were trying to gauge general public opinion, nope.

You know those "Presidential approval" polls that come out every few months? That often doesn't break down eligible and ineligible voters...

[So Tired]

Yaaaawn.

[Tulpa]

They have the questionnaire available if you follow the link and RTFA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

It's all about "who" you sample.

[Ted S.]

As usual, the writers of Yes, Minister understood this a long time ago.

[jacob]

Would you say this is more of a Team Blue or Team Red problem? Or both equally?

[Aresen]

Both.

With a hefty helping of Team Yellow.

[Library Desk Graffiti]

Permanently elevated threat level!

[Library Desk Graffiti]

Permanently elevated threat level!

[Anonymous Coward]

Both.

Team Blue promises to take your liberties for your own good, complete with experts.

Team Red promises to give you more liberties, then takes them anyway and wave a flag under your nose.

[Aresen]

I am not surprised by this. IIRC, the approval for the Patriot Act was even higher at the time it was brought in and probably remains in the same range.

I am, however, depressed by this.

[James Ard]

I don't see the need to beat up on Chuck Berry. Everyone makes mistakes, Mike Vick, anyone? Anyway, Don't Touch My Junk Airlines is the answer, with ex-El Al security.

[JR]

Damn I love that movie. Why didn't I think of that parallel? I can also imagine the TSA chief with the crazy state dinner reception and making a college dropout his Canciller. Hold on one second....these are the commie bastards we have been fighting all along! All I can say is thank God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost that we kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

[John]

This is where the media scares me. They all fall in lock step with a government action and tell the same narrative. Then they run polls that may or may not be reflective of real public opinion to try to marginalize dissenters. Meanwhile the government continues to take people's privacy and freedom. And anyone who questions it is called a nut with pre approved polling numbers to show how out of the mainstream they are.

[MNG]

Pretty much every media outlet I've seen the past days, Fox, CNN, etc., has covered this story in a balanced way. They've had critics of the policy, they've covered the growth in outrage, and they have had defenders of the policy (if anything there has been less time given to this, but that is understandable because the story right now is the backlash itself). They can't simply come out and tell how you would like it told John. They have to get at what is going on.

The media has actually been one reason this outrage is going mainstream, they are doing their job in this respect.

[John]

You think so? I keep seeing the editorial pages and it is just awful.

[Nate]

Ha agreed! You read the LA Times Op-ED on it this Monday morning?

What a fuckin world eh?

[MNG]

The same La-Times that employs Matt Welch? Or that had this piece two days ago?

http://articles.latimes.com/20.....s-20101120

Yeah, state run media indeed!

[Tulpa]

The LA Times employs Matt Welch as much as Reason employs Dave Weigel.

[MNG]

?

[John]

Welch got fired from the LA Times MNG.

[Tulpa]

MNG is apparently eternally living in 2008, when Matt Welch was working at the LA Times, the NFL Cardinals were in the Super Bowl and the Rams sucked.

[BakedPenguin]

Welch quit. I joked about him getting fired, and he was quick to point out that he had not been fired.

[Tulpa]

I guess it depends on what "is" is, right MNG?

[Rob McMillin]

Employed, sucka.

[MNG]

Nice point. The WaPo has bent over backwards to put conservatives in the Opinion page. That Charles Murray piece I brought to your attention last week? WaPo. George Will, Krauthammer. Twice a week.

I could go on and shame you some more. Shall I? Or do you just want to admit you either don't read the pages you mention or you're being horribly selective (remember, I can just look up the pieces in a few seconds)?

[John]

I was talking about the actual paper's editorials by the boards not the paid collumnists you nitwit. And no I don't spend my life keeping score at home of which side gets more collumn inches in every paper. They could give the whole editorial page to conservatives and that wouldn't make up for the fact that their entire news staffs are docrinaire leftists.

[MNG]

"wouldn't make up for the fact that their entire news staffs are docrinaire leftists."

Citation needed!

[John]

Name one hard news reporter other than Benard Goldber who went on the write a book about how biased the news is towards the left, you has turned out to be a conservative? Every other reporter when the mask slips has always turned out to be the worst sort of statist liberal. Until you can name one that hasn't, the point stands.

[MNG]

Until I name a journalist who criticizes his field as being too leftist that demonstrates the field is too leftist? WTF? Your thinking is becoming as addled as your spelling on this point John...

[John]

No. Name a hard news journalist who we know to be anything but a leftist. It is a simple question. Answer it or STFU.

[MNG]

A leftist in their personal life or in their capacity as a journalist?

I mean, that's not hard to do and easy to show with this example: are the employees of Fox News all leftists? Of course not. But to a man very few of them got their start at Fox.

You can figure out the rest of this argument on your own, no?

[Tulpa]

If people who don't know them personally know they're leftists, their leftism is ipso facto not confined to their personal lives.

[MNG]

Of course not. Take an example from acting. John Malkovich is known personally to have conservative beliefs. But no one would know this from his choice of roles or how he plays them.

Likewise you could know that a journalist votes or donates to Democrats and they could still strive toward being objective and fair.

[Tulpa]

Uh, no. Pistole was on how many Sunday morning talk shows unopposed by anyone from the other side?

[John]

But but Fox News Fox News Rush Limbaugh!!!

There MNG, i saved you the time and responded for you.

[MNG]

How many? I honestly don't know. As I said, I saw this covered on Fox and CNN multiple times and they had both sides at the least (Fox actually had a segment with just Micah and a former TSA official critical of the policy).

Also caught the Daily Show and Colbert where they only had critics of the policy.

[Tulpa]

As someone posted above, maybe if you paid attention to politics you would have a better understanding of these issues beyond your party line.

Oh, wait, that was you.

[MNG]

I assumed you had some answer as to how many shows he appeared on "unopposed." Was I wrong?

[Tulpa]

He was on Meet the Press and Face the Nation, at least.

[MNG]

So your statement was based on a content analysis of two shows?

I know the standards for research in the hard sciences aren't what I'm used to in poli sci, but that's pretty bad even by that low bar.

[Tulpa]

Do you know how many Sunday morning political talk shows there are?

[MNG]

er, this should be my question to you since you seemed to claim that Pisotle appeared unopposed on most of them.

[Tulpa]

I never claimed that, dippy.

[Bob]

I remember reading in Spy magazine in the mid-90s(Doesn't that take you back!?) that the cops did a raid on Chuck Berry's place and found a bunch of videos of women shitting and pissing in his mouth...anyone remember this? The guy's got some oral issues.

[John]

1972 was actually a pretty good year for number ones

American Pie - Don McLean
Let's Stay Together - Al Green
Without You - Nilsson
Heart of Gold - Neil Young
A Horse With No Name - America
The First Time I Ever Saw Your Face - Roberta Flack
I'll Take You There - The Staple Singers
Song Sung Blue - Neil Diamond
Lean on Me - Bill Withers
Black and White - Three Dog Night
Ben - Michael Jackson
I Can See Clearly Now - Johnny Nash
Papa Was a Rollin' Stone - The Temptations
I Am Woman - Helen Reddy

There were a few lame ones to. But that is a pretty good collection of songs.

[John]

One other thing that is interesting. Elton John's actual number one hits from the 70s

Crocodile Rock
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds
Philadephia Freedom
Bennie and the Jets
Island Girl
Don't Go Breaking My Hart.

For those too young to know, before VH1 and before Disney got ahold of him, Elton John did a ton of brilliant work in the 70s. Yet, six of the abstolute crappiest songs he ever did were his only number one hits. All that good work and those were the ones that got played. God AM radio was terrible back then.

[Rob McMillin]

Two words: Bernie Taupin.

[TrickyVic]

Bingo.

[Bob_R]

Hating all artists, sports starts, politicians, and journalists should be the default position. I've always basically assumed that people like the writers at Reason abuse their spouses and molest children. Saves time and disappointment in the future. Allows me to evaluate their work dispassionately. (Taking the week off, Nick?)

Berry was reportedly a scumbag, but wrote several excellent songs and basically invented rock guitar by adding a lot of double stops to T-Bone Walker / Charlie Christian licks. Hate the man. Love the music.

[Hucbald]

I'm a musician. I'm a libertarian. I'm heavily armed and stocked up on ammo. Eff you, Bob.

[Tulpa]

Do you have one of those trombone guns? Those things are awesome.

[Bob]

I love Chuck Berry's music...but that particular fetish is...UGH! It doesn't take away my love for his music. But something's wrong with the guy.

[Hucbald]

Nearly two thirds of Americans never fly.

[Heidi Klum's Fuckbuddy]

In a world full of people, only some want to fly...isn't that crazy?

[Rick]

Dubious poll. But if indicative, most protest movements start small. We'll see what the polls say after this weekend when more people experience the new and improved TSA.

[PIRS]

I agree, some people may assume a "patdown" still means what it meant a year ago. I think that civil disobediance is the best way to stop this madness.

Others have sugested that all men should wear kilts comando style and all women should wear hijabs.

[Mr. FIFY]

For the record, the best cover of "Kung Fu Fighting" was performed by Dread Zeppelin.

[Carl Douglas and Vivian Hawke]

Ummm ... are you sure about that?

[Mr. FIFY]

Sorry, I have a Dread Zeppelin bias.

[cheap ghd]

Not only young girls like hair straighteners very much ,but also women fall in love with ghd straighteners at the first sight,even men use ghd hair straighteners every day .and we can not have supper ,but if we go outside ,we have an excellent hairstylers .so at this time ,how to select a good ghd straightener is important to us who love beauty. And we can buy cheap ghd in the ghd website and there are so many types of cheap ghd hair straighteners for us to choose . we can look at purple ghd , ghd curling tongs ,green ghd straighteners ,blue ghd straighteners ,ghd precious limited edition etc among cheap ghd straighteners and we must choose a ghd hair straightener according to our hairtypes .if we want to have wavy hair and straight hair whenever we want to have owned ,and we can select curling tongs .if we are middle aged women and I think purple ghd straightener are suitable for you. And purple ghds are popular this year. ghd salon styler are popular in the dressing hair salons ,and we can buy cheap ghds uk in the ghd hair website.

[sevo]

MNG|11.22.10 @ 9:34PM|#
"You might think conservatives might pause and ask themselves why so many intellectual fields tilt away from them."

OK, now please explain how those in the "intellectual fields" could have been so ignorant as to support Stalin's show trials and his murderous dictatorship.
And why there is a difference between those in the "intellectual fields" who did so and those in the "intellectual fields" who now support equally ignorant positions.
Could it be that the majority of those in the "intellectual fields" tend to be, well, sort of ignorant followers of those who claim to be leaders of the "intellectual fields"?
Even Judt admits it's amazing that Sarte didn't get stoned when he went to Eastern Europe to support communism in public talks.
Your continued lack of support for your arguments beyond your continued appeal to authority is not only tiresome, it's a clear signal that you're an ignoramus incapable of any skeptical thought.
And here your mom said you were smart..............
(she lied).

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

No, she didn't know.

She wasn't very smart either.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support the new full-body security-screening machines at the country's airports, as most say they put higher priority on combating terrorism than protecting personal privacy

Never forget that democracy is great! If 50.0000000000000001% of the people are for it, then that makes it good stuff.

More good stuff! More good stuff! Long live tyranny of the majority!

[prolefeed]

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support the new full-body security-screening machines at the country's airports, as most say they put higher priority on combating terrorism than protecting personal privacy

It's a push poll. It presents a false dichotomy and misrepresents the view of the detractors.

These scanners, and the rest of the security theatre, might result in LESS passenger safety, if the screening is ineffective, and the long lines snaking back and forth make the people in the lines vulnerable to a homicide bomber who waits until he or she is in the middle of the crowd to explode the bombs.

I'll bet I can devise poll questions without the obvious bias in the linked questions, asked only of those people who actually fly on a fairly regular basis, that show staunch opposition from the majority of the people most affected by these scanners.

For example, "Opponents of these devises and the pat downs given if you refuse to undergo the scan raise various concerns, from the radiation doses from the scanners, to what many consider sexual assault or molestation in the pat downs, to the viewing of naked bodies by strangers monitoring the scanners, to the invasion of Fourth Amendment rights against searches without due process or search warrants, to ..."

By the end of the list of actual objections, I think a whole lot of people being polled would express opposition to the scanners and pat downs.

So misrepresenting opponent's views and not listing all of their actual objections skews the poll.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

I don't disagree with anything you said.

But I expect they're going to jam this down our throats anyway.

[TrickyVic]

""But I expect they're going to jam this down our throats anyway.""

Yeah.

The scanners are not physically harassing. It's the idea that someone can see the outline of your naked body. Considering how many people do home porn, and send naked pics online, it might not be as offensive to the younger crowd.

I fully expect the scanners to become primary screening and the brew ha ha to subside over time.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

Sometimes, I think moving to another country would in some ways be better for my overall state of mind. Take for example Brazil. In Brazil I'd expect shitty government.

This is my Zen moment for the day -- the realization that somewhere deep inside, there is a part of me that actually expects something better than this (and ObamaCare, and the Patriot Act, and the Bailouts, etc etc) from the U.S. I'm not sure this part of me is ever going to face reality and let go.

[James J.B. n.k.a McMillon]

I agree -There was a time when I was proud to be an American - most days now I am either sad or angry - When Obama stands up and says the bailouts were a success - the pat downs are reasonable - or when Bush created Medicare Prescriptions, two wars, etc, I could go on...

Maybe it was always this way...

People used to say, "hey do what you want its a free country..." Noone says that anymore. We used to flash the lights to warn other drivers of the cops (I still do) most don't because the speeders, like all criminals, must PAY!

Just sad to see what our "free country" has become.

[ugg boots]

Nice one, there is actually some great points on this post some of my associates will find this worthwhile, will send them a link, thanks

[Bender Bending Rodriguez]

Which means, I guess, that half of Americans feel that the pat-downs don't go far enough.

JACK JOHNSON: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far!

JOHN JACKSON: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!