When I was an undergrad working on a biology degree, I took a course in insect genetics. I thought I'd be learning about the structure and organization of arthropod genomes, which was a terribly esoteric and consequently fascinating subject to explore. The teacher ended up accusing me at one point of not using the potential I had; he felt I could have done much better in his class. It seemed quite rude, however, to inform him that what he was teaching was just a bunch of experimental techniques and as such related only tangentially to what I had hoped to learn. In other words, his class was irrelevant and boring as dirt.
I went on to pursue an M.S. in entomology, but I ran into similar problems: the molecular genetics research at the school I attended was an utter joke. In fact, almost two years after finishing classes, I still have not completed my thesis. What interest I had when I started quickly evaporated when I began attending conferences with fascinating symposia that were far above my head. The problem wasn't my lack of ability to comprehend the material; it was my department's lack of ability or even motivation to address and educate me about the presented topics.
Today, I nearly cried with mingled joy and buried frustration when I stumbled onto a Wired article that highlights a researcher who is doing the research and obtaining exactly the kind of information I sought but could never articulate because, as it turns out, it didn't exist yet. The researcher began his inquest to link genomic function and topography in 2007, the year I graduated.
In retrospect, I pursued degrees in the wrong fields altogether. This is what I get for eschewing calculus. One would think that molecular biology classes would've been the route to take to learn about the tertiary structure, organization, and function of chromosomes, but no. Biophysics apparently holds the roadmap. I should've gone to Harvard.
This is some really cool stuff. Here's an article that demonstrates some potential of this field of inquiry. The DNA in animals with excellent night vision is packaged and organized in such a way as to help focus light, rather than scatter it as our eyes tend more to do. Our genomes, as I and many others have long suspected, are more than just the sum of their sequential parts.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Apparently, suffering is an adventure.
Courtesy of a Twitter account called "Genetics Update" I came across this article about "The woman who wants to abolish sex", written by one A. N. Wilson and published on the Indian version of the UK's Daily Mail news website. In a sad commentary on hegemonic patriarchy, the views and ideas put forth by a research geneticist from Imperial College London, Aarathi Prasad, apparently made the author's jaw drop. At first it seemed as though Wilson might take her seriously, but he quickly made it clear that he couldn't because the researcher was an attractive woman. I might have submitted my response to the article and been done with it were it not for my concern that my aghast tone would be moderated out of existence.
To sum up, Prasad has written a book entitled, Madonna-esquely, Like a Virgin in which she evidently advocates humanity's taking control of and manipulating its own genetic and reproductive future. To be fair to Wilson, Prasad isn't entirely spot-on, as evidenced by her misinformed (or at least highly speculative) theory that the human Y chromosome is on a path toward extinction. (The Y chromosome in ostensibly evolutionarily older organisms like the rhesus macaque also underwent rapid initial degradation but has since stablized.) But I digress.
An excerpt of Wilson's ironic idiocy:
But wait; there's more:
I was limited to 1000 characters in my reply on the article, so I had to make it dense. What follows is my 994 character response:
So, contrary to popular belief in the US, Europe is not altogether a teeming cesspool of progressive liberal environazis. Much of Europe is also occupied by conservative bigoted ignoramuses. We're not so different after all, are we?
I'll also add that Prasad does not come off as being "contentious so that her spirited book will sell". She comes off as desiring to explore the full capabilities and possibilities of our humanity in a world that thought half of its population should not even be allowed to vote 100 years ago. You're absolutely right on at least one of your points, Mr. Wilson. You know nothing.
Update 22 August 2012: My comment never appeared under the article, and now it appears that they've barred comments on it altogether. Funny how censorship and ignorance work.
To sum up, Prasad has written a book entitled, Madonna-esquely, Like a Virgin in which she evidently advocates humanity's taking control of and manipulating its own genetic and reproductive future. To be fair to Wilson, Prasad isn't entirely spot-on, as evidenced by her misinformed (or at least highly speculative) theory that the human Y chromosome is on a path toward extinction. (The Y chromosome in ostensibly evolutionarily older organisms like the rhesus macaque also underwent rapid initial degradation but has since stablized.) But I digress.
An excerpt of Wilson's ironic idiocy:
She wants us to drop all our prejudices about sex, sexual difference, reproduction and foetuses, and to allow science to develop in any way it chooses.
‘Why can’t a man be a mother?’ she asks. ‘Why do we care so much about what it means to be a 'mother' rather than to be a 'parent'?
‘By all reasonable estimates, in the near future we will conquer the tyranny of the womb. The question remains if we can also conquer the tyranny of human prejudice, too.’
Of course, she is being contentious so that her spirited book will sell. But Prasad is not a neutral research scientist: she is an out-an-out liberal campaigner in favour of taking research on human embryology and fertilisation as far as it will go.
In her vision of the world, it is only fuddy-duddies who would question why anyone — elderly women, men, you name it — should not become pregnant if they choose to indulge the whim.
She is a brilliant scientist, and I know nothing about her subject. But the greatest problem facing this planet isn’t the slight dip in human fertility in the West. Rather, as any third world charity worker will tell you, it is the vast problem of overpopulation, especially in parts of the world scarcely capable of feeding themselves.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the issue is not that a few selfish older ladies or gay men cannot have babies. It is that the babies who have already been born in vast numbers do not have enough to eat. Prasad’s book provides a very strong example of how scientists can ignore the blindingly obvious in an attempt to brainwash us.
‘Why can’t a man be a mother?’ she asks. ‘Why do we care so much about what it means to be a 'mother' rather than to be a 'parent'?
‘By all reasonable estimates, in the near future we will conquer the tyranny of the womb. The question remains if we can also conquer the tyranny of human prejudice, too.’
Of course, she is being contentious so that her spirited book will sell. But Prasad is not a neutral research scientist: she is an out-an-out liberal campaigner in favour of taking research on human embryology and fertilisation as far as it will go.
In her vision of the world, it is only fuddy-duddies who would question why anyone — elderly women, men, you name it — should not become pregnant if they choose to indulge the whim.
She is a brilliant scientist, and I know nothing about her subject. But the greatest problem facing this planet isn’t the slight dip in human fertility in the West. Rather, as any third world charity worker will tell you, it is the vast problem of overpopulation, especially in parts of the world scarcely capable of feeding themselves.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the issue is not that a few selfish older ladies or gay men cannot have babies. It is that the babies who have already been born in vast numbers do not have enough to eat. Prasad’s book provides a very strong example of how scientists can ignore the blindingly obvious in an attempt to brainwash us.
Would we really have a better world if we had been able to select our children in the way we might choose a pet in a shop? Is there not something healthy and adventurous about accepting what comes?
Is there not something creepy — almost Nazi — about the idea of trying to create for ourselves a perfect child who does not inherit Uncle Sid’s dyspepsia, Aunt Mavis’s wonky teeth, and those weird knees from Charles’s side of the family? Does not the attempt to make babies into designer items remove any of the adventure of being born?
Yet, above all, is there not something sinister and joyless about the notion of going it alone when it comes to reproducing ourselves?
In the old myth about the Garden of Eden, God says that ‘it is not good for man to be alone’. Modern science disagrees. It thinks there is nothing wrong with this.
A generation ago, we watched families breaking up in large numbers for the first time, and the breakdown of marriages. Nearly every observer of society agrees that this was calamitous, especially in the less privileged parts of our cities, where lack of family structure is the major background and cause of crime, psychological dislocation, and anti-social behaviour.
What appears to be a scientific exploration is actually a political tract, saying that we can do without a patriarchal, male-dominated society, do without Dad, without family, without any of the structures which have hitherto shaped the human destiny.
Is there not something creepy — almost Nazi — about the idea of trying to create for ourselves a perfect child who does not inherit Uncle Sid’s dyspepsia, Aunt Mavis’s wonky teeth, and those weird knees from Charles’s side of the family? Does not the attempt to make babies into designer items remove any of the adventure of being born?
Yet, above all, is there not something sinister and joyless about the notion of going it alone when it comes to reproducing ourselves?
In the old myth about the Garden of Eden, God says that ‘it is not good for man to be alone’. Modern science disagrees. It thinks there is nothing wrong with this.
A generation ago, we watched families breaking up in large numbers for the first time, and the breakdown of marriages. Nearly every observer of society agrees that this was calamitous, especially in the less privileged parts of our cities, where lack of family structure is the major background and cause of crime, psychological dislocation, and anti-social behaviour.
What appears to be a scientific exploration is actually a political tract, saying that we can do without a patriarchal, male-dominated society, do without Dad, without family, without any of the structures which have hitherto shaped the human destiny.
I was limited to 1000 characters in my reply on the article, so I had to make it dense. What follows is my 994 character response:
He's kidding, right? He honestly believes that a man is a necessary part of a healthy family as opposed to simply having proper childhood nurturing and support regardless of parental sex or gender? That modern science should be criticized through the lens of a myth and given the same standing as a religious text? That hegemonic male/female dichotomization and marginalization of women is healthy as judged by the fact that their male-dominated families broke apart when women were able to disabuse their sex from their oppressively enforced gender roles? That suffering with a terminal genetic illness is an "adventure"? No, there's not "something healthy and adventurous about accepting what comes"! "What comes" is often war, starvation, disease, and other characteristics of our "patriarchal, male-dominated society... [and] the structures which have hitherto shaped the human destiny". Advocating for the status quo as Wilson has just done is pure sickness. Or, maybe it's just ignorance.
So, contrary to popular belief in the US, Europe is not altogether a teeming cesspool of progressive liberal environazis. Much of Europe is also occupied by conservative bigoted ignoramuses. We're not so different after all, are we?
I'll also add that Prasad does not come off as being "contentious so that her spirited book will sell". She comes off as desiring to explore the full capabilities and possibilities of our humanity in a world that thought half of its population should not even be allowed to vote 100 years ago. You're absolutely right on at least one of your points, Mr. Wilson. You know nothing.
Update 22 August 2012: My comment never appeared under the article, and now it appears that they've barred comments on it altogether. Funny how censorship and ignorance work.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Disingenuous much?
Posted by Person 1:
205.186.130.43Stand with Planned Parenthood and sign the open letter to the reps who voted to cut funding for HIV tests, cancer screenings, birth control, and more, putting millions of women and families at risk -- and to the senators who still have a chance to stop it. www.ppaction.org/IStandWithPP
My response:
I tried to get obtain some services from PP once. Either they ignore the needs of all men or I'm the first one they ever blew off, but I ended up getting helped much faster and more professionally by the public health department of the city I was in. I have no sympathy.
Person 2: Um... I mean, I would never go to a prostate specialist for my healthcare and expect them to help me...
This response, unsurprisingly, got a "thumbs up" from Person 1
Me:
Person 2: I'm really sympathizing with the plight of the white male in America... Must be really tough.
Me: Yeah, they're never poor and in need of sexual health or parental planning services. Might as well discriminate against them based on both sex *and* skin color, right? But, just to be safe, it's probably a good idea to *say* they won't be discriminated against in order to avoid looking like a bigot.
My response:
I tried to get obtain some services from PP once. Either they ignore the needs of all men or I'm the first one they ever blew off, but I ended up getting helped much faster and more professionally by the public health department of the city I was in. I have no sympathy.
Person 2: Um... I mean, I would never go to a prostate specialist for my healthcare and expect them to help me...
This response, unsurprisingly, got a "thumbs up" from Person 1
Me:
"We are a trusted health care provider, an informed educator, a passionate advocate, and a global partner helping similar organizations around the world. Planned Parenthood delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide."
http://www.plannedparentho
If they don't intend to help men, they shouldn't claim they will.
http://www.plannedparentho
If they don't intend to help men, they shouldn't claim they will.
Person 2: I'm really sympathizing with the plight of the white male in America... Must be really tough.
Me: Yeah, they're never poor and in need of sexual health or parental planning services. Might as well discriminate against them based on both sex *and* skin color, right? But, just to be safe, it's probably a good idea to *say* they won't be discriminated against in order to avoid looking like a bigot.
There are a bunch of other things I'd like to add about the "equality" movements and mindsets with which I'm surrounded, but I'll leave those comments for another time. My point is that I notice that their enthusiasts often enthusiastically use mistreatment of their pet victims to justify my mistreatment, and it rankles me - and it should really rankle anyone who is in favor of true equality.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Radical, dude.
While I hesitate to condemn the "liberal agenda" given that it's kind of a fudge word and that I'm more socially liberal than many, a friend's Facebook post prompted some commentary I thought worth sharing.
Original post from Person 1:"Now that the republicans have taken the teeth out of the liberal agenda it is important to remember that this was NOT a vote for the republican agenda. This was a vote for smaller government and against radical ideology."
Response from Person 2: I disagree that it was radical ideology to begin with. Person 2 then posted this link to a NY Times article.
My response (after a deep breath): So, lemme get this straight... The neocons/repubs, dems, and Obama demonstrated a clear intention and willingness to forcefully take over vast tracts of our economy instead of trustbusting and encouraging competition, helped uphold the inflated value of housing and college degrees both, are continuing to make it easy to borrow money at low interest rates to buy housing when that was one of the problems in the first place, are hamstringing incentives to save money by making sure returns on savings accounts and CD's continue to be held at historic lows via artificially low interest rates, fed the stock market aka big business billions in bailouts that were borrowed money in the first place, helped perpetuate businesses - especially banks - that can still destroy the economy if they go under, have pushed our yearly budget deficits to new heights (lows?), have kept us involved in two major Asian land wars, continue to support torture and extraordinary rendition and invoke "state secret" privileges to protect the government from accountability for it, and continue to reauthorize the erosion of civil liberties via the Patriot Act, and this is not only not radical ideology but also good somehow for capitalism and the average US citizen? You'll have to pardon my skepticism.
In other news, Four Loko, the caffeinated energy drink spiked with 12% alcohol by volume, is set to be banned. Thanks for protecting us from ourselves, government! How would we ever make decisions in our best interest without you?
Incidentally, this strikes me as more the M.O of fascists than of liberals.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Consent is fundamental
A friend (Person 1) posted this link on Facebook. The title/tagline reads, "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested, man tells TSA agent after refusing body scanner."
The ensuing discussion went about as follows (edited for clarity and a minor improvement in brevity). Readers may wish to skip to the end to see my thoughts and then may wish to skim preceding comments to find the fodder for my response.
The ensuing discussion went about as follows (edited for clarity and a minor improvement in brevity). Readers may wish to skip to the end to see my thoughts and then may wish to skim preceding comments to find the fodder for my response.
Person 2: Um, would you rather your kids get scanned or blown up because some body brought a bomb on the plane? I mean, if you want to look at porn, you don't have to scan people with x-ray machines. Next thing you know doctors are going to get sued when they check for broken bones... This is really stupid.
Person 1: You realize that this same thing happened to another woman recently who had been raped soon before her flight, and she told the security officers this but they then felt her up and made her break down in a full-scale panic attack, right? You honestly think it's necessary to go through all this at the expense of human decency? Next they'll decide that this xray doesn't effectively show things that could be hidden in the rectum. Hope you enjoy fisting.Person 3: is it really though? the man, as far as we know (and we don't), showed absolutely no signs of illegal activity when entering the TSA line. 80% of those people passed through the metal detector, 20% were searched physically or sent through the backscatter machine. what about the 80% that were simply scanned for metal they could have easily done something just as harmful to that plane as the man forced into the minority. this has nothing to do with getting off on the mans exposure, however, it has EVERYTHING to do with his rights as a human being.
the fact that you would even allude to the idea that the man in question was merely offended because he felt that someone would ogle him via the machine shows you have little understanding of why this is such a big deal. there is absolutely no reason, in this particular situation, that that man should have been forced to be groped by someone against his consent, or be made to consent to such a search without being offered a less intrusive alternative. nor should he have been forced through the x-ray. A machine like that invades the privacy of a human being. and a physical search without exhausting all other opportunities first is beyond overstepping civil liberty for the sake of paranoia and control.
forms of search like this, like i said, should be a last resort after all other alternatives are exhausted or the man literally refuses to cooperate with any form of search. at which point the proper channels should be taken and handled professionally and courteously rather than telling the man to either take the only two options out of a battery of available, less intrusive if not completely non intrusive, forms of search (i.e. dogs, metal detectors, wands for the legs arms and crotch etc. etc.)
this kind of ultimatum stems from nothing but fear and abuse, yes we should be safe, secure, and, when human nature is taken into consideration, skeptical. However we have a pretty nifty set of liberties that we are guaranteed as Americans and human beings, both, written and implied.
Before you attempt to tell me why that man and myself are wrong, and you could as I have no idea who you are or how well you truly understand this situation nor your ability to form a cognitive argument, answer me this. lets say you're on your way to lets say....nebraska, you're departing from XNA, your only luggage is a single backpack containing nothing but clothes, a small quantity of makeup and care products, and the essential american's accessories (i.e. cellphone charger, pdf reader, ipod etc.etc.).
your pockets are emptied when you send your backpack through the scanner. everything checks out, but as you're about to press forward to the standing metal detector you're flagged and asked to go over to line with the backscatter.
you knowing you have absolutely nothing to hide but would rather go through the proper channels than be forced to literally expose yourself, not because you're scared of your body or anyone seeing it but simply because it's no different than them asking you to remove your outfit on the spot so they can be "sure".
finally after you refuse the backscatter they tell you to allow them to run their hands along the insides of your thighs or the bottom of your crotch on what amounts to doubt not even a hunch. or even as far as to enter a closed room and remove your pants grab your ankles and squat to "ensure" that you're not hiding any bombs in your vagina, because by your logic that should be done because you could have severely hurt a lot of people on that plane. you refuse that and they tell you either succumb to their will or remove yourself from the line. you decide that flight isn't worth the effort and decide to take your business elsewhere only to be confronted by the EXACT SAME AGENCY that told you to remove yourself to tell you that you're going to be involved in a civil lawsuit on top of 10k in fines.
and all of that could have been avoided had they simply followed procedure instead of forcing their will on you with an ultimatum that results in being barred from the flight, getting felt up by someone you don't know, or being told you either let them touch you, see you, or take you to court even if you avoid the system all together. entirely on the principle that the safety of many comes at the sacrifice of the rights of few. 80 out of the hundred people on your flight got to simply waltz through the scanner and now you're not on your plane and you could see a lot of trouble in the future.
if you STILL don't see the issue in this situation you need to seriously reevaluate your ability to exercise your rights, lest the abuse you accept because it's "how things work" extends beyond the TSA line and into your living room with your husband johnny "beatshiswife" fowler and his anger at your inability to get him a budweiser before the wheel comes on.
yeah domestic abuse is quite a stretch, however sometimes it takes an extreme to make a point, what i'm trying to say is you have rights, use them or get walked on. you have the right to refuse the process without interrupting it. if you remain peaceful they should also. that's not even something that needs to be said. if you allow something as stupid as the TSA to be aggressive because they tell you it's safer where will it end?
the fact that you would even allude to the idea that the man in question was merely offended because he felt that someone would ogle him via the machine shows you have little understanding of why this is such a big deal. there is absolutely no reason, in this particular situation, that that man should have been forced to be groped by someone against his consent, or be made to consent to such a search without being offered a less intrusive alternative. nor should he have been forced through the x-ray. A machine like that invades the privacy of a human being. and a physical search without exhausting all other opportunities first is beyond overstepping civil liberty for the sake of paranoia and control.
forms of search like this, like i said, should be a last resort after all other alternatives are exhausted or the man literally refuses to cooperate with any form of search. at which point the proper channels should be taken and handled professionally and courteously rather than telling the man to either take the only two options out of a battery of available, less intrusive if not completely non intrusive, forms of search (i.e. dogs, metal detectors, wands for the legs arms and crotch etc. etc.)
this kind of ultimatum stems from nothing but fear and abuse, yes we should be safe, secure, and, when human nature is taken into consideration, skeptical. However we have a pretty nifty set of liberties that we are guaranteed as Americans and human beings, both, written and implied.
Before you attempt to tell me why that man and myself are wrong, and you could as I have no idea who you are or how well you truly understand this situation nor your ability to form a cognitive argument, answer me this. lets say you're on your way to lets say....nebraska, you're departing from XNA, your only luggage is a single backpack containing nothing but clothes, a small quantity of makeup and care products, and the essential american's accessories (i.e. cellphone charger, pdf reader, ipod etc.etc.).
your pockets are emptied when you send your backpack through the scanner. everything checks out, but as you're about to press forward to the standing metal detector you're flagged and asked to go over to line with the backscatter.
you knowing you have absolutely nothing to hide but would rather go through the proper channels than be forced to literally expose yourself, not because you're scared of your body or anyone seeing it but simply because it's no different than them asking you to remove your outfit on the spot so they can be "sure".
finally after you refuse the backscatter they tell you to allow them to run their hands along the insides of your thighs or the bottom of your crotch on what amounts to doubt not even a hunch. or even as far as to enter a closed room and remove your pants grab your ankles and squat to "ensure" that you're not hiding any bombs in your vagina, because by your logic that should be done because you could have severely hurt a lot of people on that plane. you refuse that and they tell you either succumb to their will or remove yourself from the line. you decide that flight isn't worth the effort and decide to take your business elsewhere only to be confronted by the EXACT SAME AGENCY that told you to remove yourself to tell you that you're going to be involved in a civil lawsuit on top of 10k in fines.
and all of that could have been avoided had they simply followed procedure instead of forcing their will on you with an ultimatum that results in being barred from the flight, getting felt up by someone you don't know, or being told you either let them touch you, see you, or take you to court even if you avoid the system all together. entirely on the principle that the safety of many comes at the sacrifice of the rights of few. 80 out of the hundred people on your flight got to simply waltz through the scanner and now you're not on your plane and you could see a lot of trouble in the future.
if you STILL don't see the issue in this situation you need to seriously reevaluate your ability to exercise your rights, lest the abuse you accept because it's "how things work" extends beyond the TSA line and into your living room with your husband johnny "beatshiswife" fowler and his anger at your inability to get him a budweiser before the wheel comes on.
yeah domestic abuse is quite a stretch, however sometimes it takes an extreme to make a point, what i'm trying to say is you have rights, use them or get walked on. you have the right to refuse the process without interrupting it. if you remain peaceful they should also. that's not even something that needs to be said. if you allow something as stupid as the TSA to be aggressive because they tell you it's safer where will it end?
Person 2: [Person 1 (Name redacted)], there are always special cases. In all fairness though, the woman was safer because of the x-ray. What if the next man in line had a knife that they didn't find by normal means and held her in the bathroom at knife point and raped her? Honestly these are trained professionals. These people who work security have to pass the same, if not stricter, background check that I had to in order to work at the shelter.
I don't think the intent is so that perverts can get jobs in air ports and look at blue-ish black-ish x-ray porn. This is a preventative measure so that we don't have to go through things like stripping down or getting cavity searches.
I don't think the intent is so that perverts can get jobs in air ports and look at blue-ish black-ish x-ray porn. This is a preventative measure so that we don't have to go through things like stripping down or getting cavity searches.
Person 1:
1) There are medical concerns, and I have a serious problem with them as well.
2) Just because you're okay with being viewed through this machine does NOT mean that everyone should be subjected to it... Just because you don't [feel violated] doesn't mean others shouldn't. If you were coerced to have sex with a guy while drunk at a frat party and didn't feel terrible about it the next morning, that wouldn't mean no one else should be allowed to feel that way. What I'm saying is that it's invasive, and the airline should not be allowed to exceed the standards of someone's personal physical or psychological comfort, regardless of whether you personally feel fine with it or not.
3) Because they're private corporations, there is all the MORE reason they should not be allowed to do this. The argument that this man made about not being searched by a law enforcement officer was valid. Police cannot do a body search of you without arresting your first or reasonable cause to believe they are in imminent and immediate danger. Civilian corporations have no right to subject you to a body search at all. If we allow this, we need to allow Target to do these kinds of procedures when you walk into their store to make sure you're not going to hold up the cashier or blow up the building, too. Extending these privileges to non-government entities to violate the privacy and dignity of The People is a slippery slope that we don't want to walk down, even though we already are -- and quickly.
1) There are medical concerns, and I have a serious problem with them as well.
2) Just because you're okay with being viewed through this machine does NOT mean that everyone should be subjected to it... Just because you don't [feel violated] doesn't mean others shouldn't. If you were coerced to have sex with a guy while drunk at a frat party and didn't feel terrible about it the next morning, that wouldn't mean no one else should be allowed to feel that way. What I'm saying is that it's invasive, and the airline should not be allowed to exceed the standards of someone's personal physical or psychological comfort, regardless of whether you personally feel fine with it or not.
3) Because they're private corporations, there is all the MORE reason they should not be allowed to do this. The argument that this man made about not being searched by a law enforcement officer was valid. Police cannot do a body search of you without arresting your first or reasonable cause to believe they are in imminent and immediate danger. Civilian corporations have no right to subject you to a body search at all. If we allow this, we need to allow Target to do these kinds of procedures when you walk into their store to make sure you're not going to hold up the cashier or blow up the building, too. Extending these privileges to non-government entities to violate the privacy and dignity of The People is a slippery slope that we don't want to walk down, even though we already are -- and quickly.
My response, now that the gist of the comments has been posted:
- If a guy sneaks a gun on a plane and tries to terrorize those on board, you can bet that the passengers won't sit idly by - not after 9/11, especially. I will be the first person shot in the course of subduing the ***hole if I'm on such a plane if that's what it ****ing takes. The best security is a group of aware and empowered passengers, not a bunch of government loafers left behind at the terminal.
- If there were issues other than government command and control (e.g., true security) at stake, airlines would be free to have their own security measures in place and passengers would get to choose which airline they wanted to use based on which one had the best, or most effective, or least intrusive, etc, security. Instead, what I'm being told is that all of this is necessary so that someone can't sneak in an underwear bomb. What's ironic is that the underwear bomber would not necessarily have been subject to a US-style security check anyway given that he was flying from Holland. What's even stranger is that he was reportedly allowed - nay, escorted - on to the plane without even a passport. http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_says_at_l.html
That said, private corporations absolutely SHOULD be allowed to do this - if their passengers explicitly consent to such measures. No private corporation would choose to do such a thing were it not mandated by the federal government. The majority of their potential passengers would be outraged, and rightly so. This is not an issue of decency. It is an issue of consent and control. - As if I even needed to mention it given that it has no teeth any more: 4th Amendment
- Why would we trust the same people (the fed gov't) who brought us the Iraq War to keep us safe from terrorists? To illustrate my point, let's just say I intimately know someone who accidentally sneaked a 3" blade in his/her carry-on luggage on to an aircraft several years after 9/11.
- Just because the government thinks something should be illegal doesn't mean it should be. See: sodomy, interracial marriage, DHEA (a potentially beneficial hormone precursor that was nearly banned because some jackass incorrectly thought it should be considered a steroid), driving without a seatbelt, a drinking age under 21, marijuana, etc. ad nauseum. The point of the last statement is that sometimes there are legitimate reasons to hide things, due not to moral, safety, or ethical issues but due solely to government capriciousness.
- As a last comment directed at Person 2's statement: doctors are given explicit (or at the least, strongly implied) consent by their patients to access their patients' bodies, images of their body, medical records, etc. It's part of the social contract involved with seeing a doctor. Hence, analogy fail. It's not about the action, it's about the consent.
Consent is a fundamental human right. Otherwise it's rape.
Fortunately, global outrage is mounting. For an example and a parting laugh:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZSEf_4F3jk
This may or may not be a good idea...
But I have come to some realizations. One is that sometimes I have something worth saying. Another is that even when others say the sort of thing I feel should be said, their grammar, punctuation, and overall cohesiveness are usually disappointing at best and infuriating at worst. So, if my readers will pardon my self-aggrandizement here, I shall draw heavily from comments I have posted elsewhere (Facebook, especially) in order to get this experiment off the ground.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)