Circumcision and the TSA
A few years ago, I pointed on Usenet that prohibiting circumcision would require violations of privacy:
In other words, enforcing anti-circumcision laws will require policemanMore recently, I realized that, owing to the Trained Sodomy Administrators, we actually have policeman asking men to drop their pants.
asking men to drop their pants.
I think that counts as a real violation of privacy (not a mere "penumbra"
this time).
Uh oh.
3 Comments:
Interesting argument but no one is required to fly. I personally have been patted down and I found riding the tube in London to be more invasive.
"but not one is required to fly"
And if I am told by my employer that I must attend a meeting overseas? You think they'll pay for a boat trip?
And if I get a telegram that my mother living across country is dying? You think Amtrak will get me there before she expires? Assuming Amtrak doesn't adopt the same pat-down procedures ...
It boggles me that anyone is so criminally obtuse as to defend TSA.
Don't work in a field that requires flight-many do.
Live near your family-it's your choice.
I am not defending the TSA, just thinking about the argument objectively. I'd fly in an airline without any security because it is all just a charade anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home