See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On March 28th, 2008 at 4:41 pm, taylork said:

   Gloria allred sure does take important cases. I’m so glad she’s looking out for my right to have a pieced nipple and get on an airplane.

2. #2
   On March 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pm, Rusty said:

   If terrorists are willing to use people with Down’s syndrome and fake pregnancies for their dastardly purposes, why wouldn’t they dress someone up as a nun?

3. #3
   On March 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pm, TexasTiger said:

   When the TSA outlaws nipple rings only outlaws will have nipple rings.

4. #4
   On March 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pm, raybury said:

   The policy change should have been changed only to advise flyers to take off their asinine body piercings before coming to the airport. Looking at nipples, navels, and even genitals is not a good resource allocation.

5. #5
   On March 28th, 2008 at 4:50 pm, Salt said:

   Rusty said:

   If terrorists are willing to use people with Down’s syndrome and fake pregnancies for their dastardly purposes, why wouldn’t they dress someone up as a nun?

   Robert Spencer summed it up nicely on the link Michelle provided:

   “Of course there should be random searches, and no one should be exempt — if any group is exempt, its dress will soon be adopted by the terrorists. But there is an absurdity to this photo. And a hint that maybe we would do better devoting our resources to searching those who are more likely to be threats — were that not so politically incorrect.”

6. #6
   On March 28th, 2008 at 4:51 pm, loob said:

   Rusty said: If terrorists are willing to use people with Down’s syndrome and fake pregnancies for their dastardly purposes, why wouldn’t they dress someone up as a nun?

   So true. Those hordes of elderly white women are clamoring to be used in such a fashion.

7. #7
   On March 28th, 2008 at 4:52 pm, Mister P said:

   Who is that omnipresent lawyer? I am weary of seeing her face.

8. #8
   On March 28th, 2008 at 4:53 pm, Mister P said:

   If terrorists are willing to use people with Down’s syndrome and fake pregnancies for their dastardly purposes, why wouldn’t they dress someone up as a nun?

   Why would nuns wear nipple rings?

9. #9
   On March 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pm, AlohaGuy said:

   The woman offered to show the rings to the female TSA screener. That could have easily been the end of it. Are nipple rings really a danger?. Don’t we have lettuce in danger of rotting?

10. #10
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:01 pm, raybury said:

    AlohaGuy, the TSA says the screeners followed protocol which was that the scan had to be cleared, but the nature of the change is that now, yes, they could just have her flash the female TSA employee. Or, in the case of a man who has something called a… never mind, but my complaint is that this procedural change is going to waste time versus encouraging folks to leave the jewerly off.

11. #11
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:03 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    There is actually a liberal in the office that thinks all grandmothers should be stripped searched. He is completely serious. His reasoning? Grandmothers used to blow up our guys in Nam. There is NO end to the liberal side of this issue.

    /sarc

    Please, save us from white female nuns! Many of you forgot how many were flying planes on 9/11.

    /sarc off

12. #12
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pm, Boomer said:

    I could barely believe this when I first saw the report yesterday. The snickering of the male TSA members should get them a free trip to some sensitivity training along with reprimands as a minimum. I’m beginning to think common sense is anything, but common these days.

    Glad my last TSA experience was much better. I misplaced my retired military ID card and the folks at the Boise Airport went out of their way to help me find it. Finally found it in my freaking laptop carrying case and felt like a total idiot. Still can’t get over how pleasant and reasonable they were to not only me, but with how they treated everyone processing through security.

13. #13
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm, gunslingerpatriot said:

    When old white nuns start committing terrorist acts rather than those of the religion of peace, then I’ll start racially profiling them.

    Until then; all middle eastern males and females 16-35, wearing burquas and etc are fair game to be given a double take when I travel.

    GSP
    Typical White Male

14. #14
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:13 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    Rusty said: If terrorists are willing to use people with Down’s syndrome and fake pregnancies for their dastardly purposes, why wouldn’t they dress someone up as a nun?

    And how, exactly, would they propose to find a willing volunteer to dress as a nun?

    But you do bring up a larger point – burquas. Terrorists have, in the past, used burquas to disguse themselves and conceal bombs.

    And we know, historically, the terrorists who target the US – like the highjackers on 9/11 – fit a specific demographic. Namely male, 25-40ish, and of Middle Easter/Arab ethnicity. Why can’t we focus on the group historically known for terror attacks?

    It’s a joke to think a 37-year-old woman with piercings is as likely a threat as someone who fits the profile of a terrorist.

15. #15
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    I’m beginning to think common sense is anything, but common these days.

    My brother says common sense is so uncommon it’s practically a superpower. Guess he’s right.

16. #16
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:18 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    TSA=Our government’s version of a painless, touch-less anal examination. The IRS are the ones who really excel at the probing.

17. #17
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:23 pm, raybury said:

    Could this have been a stunt? Lubbock to DFW is less than 350 miles and just over six hours by car, and we are not talking about California or the I-95 corridor. It might be reasonable to drive in lieu of four hours or more checking in, going through security, boarding, flying, and collecting luggage, not to mention time spent beforehand packing for flight. You would spend maybe $60 in gas one way, versus ticket price plus innumerable fees, and have an easier time packing. I expect the Lubbock-to-Dallas flight is probably frequented by flyers connecting in Dallas for longer trips, not ones who are just going there from Lubbock.

18. #18
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pm, whm3113 said:

    Let’s be realistic.

    When the next nut who wants to highjack a plane in the US tries to board, he/she will not be wearing obviously religious garments. He/she will likely be wearing a suit, will be cleanly shaven, and will try to appear as much like a frequent flyer as possible. This is why I, as a fat, bald, middle aged, white man do not object to the TSA screening. I’m the profile of what a successful bomber would need to look like.

    On the other hand, I do object to the dope in front of me on line who has to be told to remove the laptop from the case, take off his shoes, remove the cellphone from his pocket, etc., all because he doesn’t pay attention to the world around him, and somehow thinks he doesn’t need to do all things being done by the people in front of him on line.

19. #19
    On March 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm, DarkKnight said:

    it’s hard to have sympathy for federal airline officials who refuse to do common sense profiling

    Ms. Malkin (or others) What exactly is “common sense profiling?”

20. #20
    On March 28th, 2008 at 6:34 pm, MNUSMCDavid said:

    Profile, profile, profile! The Israelis have it right!

21. #21
    On March 28th, 2008 at 6:36 pm, MNUSMCDavid said:

    Oh as to common sense? Let’s see…. Arabic, with no luggage, between the ages of 18 and 30…… sound familiar?

22. #22
    On March 28th, 2008 at 7:39 pm, hadsil said:

    The problem is Islamic terrorists are not the only danger to airplanes. That picture of the nun being frisked does look silly, but suppose she was an environmentalist wacko who thinks throwing molotov cocktails into houses is no longer enough and wants to board in disguise? Timothy McVeigh was not Islamic.

    Using profiling for only scrutizing Arabs more earnestly will create a hole for others who mean terror but not for Islam. Hyperbole, but the movie “Twelve Monkeys” showed that, and that movie was before 9/11.

23. #23
    On March 28th, 2008 at 7:41 pm, kman said:

    What stands out to me is how small-minded bureaucrats (and all TSA employees) hide behind “policy”. They have discretion but when they fail to use it and make a stupid decision, they claim “it’s policy!” and expect us to excuse them for it. I’m sorry but just because someone writes it down and calls it a policy doesn’t excuse the behavior. You might keep your job and your supervisors might not blame you, but everyone else (rightly) considers you an idiot.

24. #24
    On March 28th, 2008 at 7:42 pm, zorro said:

    I knew that story would get “exposure”.

25. #25
    On March 28th, 2008 at 8:04 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    Ms. Malkin (or others) What exactly is “common sense profiling?”

    Common sense profiling is realizing that the terrorists who crashed planes in NY, DC, and PA on 9/11 were 25-40 year old males of Middle Eastern descent.

    Common sense profiling is realizing that every major foreign-born terrorist attack on American soil (the first WTC bombing) and an overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks throughout the world were carried out by men ages 25-40 who are of Middle Eastern descent.

    These men also profess a belief in Islam.

    Increasingly, we are seeing women – usually hijab wearing women – who partake in homicide bombings.

    So COMMON SENSE profiling would mean targeting individuals who fit those descriptions and scrutinizing them more than the 37-year-old woman with chest piercings.

    It may not be politically correct, but if a bunch of blonde haired, hazel-eyed Catholic women had committed acts of terrorism, I’d have no qualms about taking an extra few minutes for a thorough background check. I have nothing to hide.

    The notion that “anyone” could be a terrorist flies in the face of logic and reason because it denies the very strong statistical reality that terrorists are most likely to fit a certain racial/ethnic and religious profile.

26. #26
    On March 28th, 2008 at 8:45 pm, brooklyn red said:

    OK, this sound like a guy I interviewed for a job recently… he was lamenting that ever since he got the tattoo on his face & neck nobody would hire him.

    Here is a clue, if you want piercings that’s your business… if you want to get on an airplane, get the kind that are removable.

27. #27
    On March 28th, 2008 at 8:56 pm, brooklyn red said:

    englishqueen01, well said, but
    the enemy knows this too… they are looking for those who don’t fit the profile…

    In the meantime, SWM seeks SF w/pierced nipples & large out of court settlement for casual relationship.

28. #28
    On March 28th, 2008 at 8:57 pm, Rusty said:

    It’s a joke to think a 37-year-old woman with piercings is as likely a threat as someone who fits the profile of a terrorist.

    My favorite airplane safety story happened two months after 9/11. My friend worked at a supermarket and we were flying back to my college where she was going to spend the week with me.

    Since she worked at a supermarket her purse was filled with boxcutters. The weapon people believed was used by the 9/11 terrorists.

    She took about 25 of them out of her purse. Once we got back to school we realized she missed a pocket. She accidentally smuggled half a dozen boxcutters on the plane.

    Other than proving that the TSA is useless, it also shows that anyone can bring weapons onto a plane. And to think that a white woman who might associate with the bad guys might not wear a habit or a uniform is crazy.

    There is a profile. Terrorists will try to get past it. Search everyone.

29. #29
    On March 28th, 2008 at 9:04 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    This story is about Boobs on so many levels…

    Sorry all, it’s Friday!

30. #30
    On March 28th, 2008 at 9:16 pm, amigoneus said:

    Don’t laugh, but my first thought was HOW BIG ARE THOSE RINGS?!?!?! My bellybutton is pierced, and I have NEVER set off a metal detector. Maybe I’m not wearing real metal, although it was sold as stirling silver…

    Anyway, it’s Friday!!!

31. #31
    On March 28th, 2008 at 10:14 pm, LaMonte said:

    We here call her ‘Gloria Allmouth’ instead of her usual name of Gloria Allred [born Bloom] — because she famously, it is said, called Clarance Thomas an ‘uncle Tom’. Her frequent appearances seem based on her uncanny ability to chase, not ambulances, but anything which could solidify her credentials as ace defender of supposedly downtrodden women.

32. #32
    On March 28th, 2008 at 11:10 pm, almeehan said:

    Pretty soon they are going to ban milk duds!
    There is a new series coming out on TV: when nipple rings go wild.

33. #33
    On March 29th, 2008 at 4:45 am, Lifeofthemind said:

    Visual inspection does not clear the alarm. If the alarm is not cleared then the airplane is not safe. Full Stop.

34. #34
    On March 29th, 2008 at 7:49 am, JHSII said:

    One hundred percent of the successful terrorist attacks on commercial airlines for 20 years have been committed by Arabs. When there is a 100 percent chance of being hijacked by an Arab Muslim Extremist, it ceases to be a profile. It’s called a ‘description of the suspect.’ – Ann Coulter

35. #35
    On March 29th, 2008 at 8:32 am, JHSII said:

    http://www.ropma.net/muzzie_quiz.htm

36. #36
    On March 29th, 2008 at 11:16 am, DBNinKY said:

    “Marines and Medal of Honor recipients have been subjected to onerous screening, too. It isn’t the end of the world to be asked to remove removable jewelry.”

    Right! Long before ever deciding on a private piercing or tattoo, people need to realize that such personal embellishments bring with them the potential consequence of public embarrassment in unexpected/out-of-the-ordinary situations like airport screenings, emergency room visits, etc.

    Btw, a dermatologist I know says any body piercing amounts to a break in the skin and provides a potential pathway for infection and disease. So be careful and use plenty of anti-septic if you’re considering one

37. #37
    On March 29th, 2008 at 1:58 pm, toubabou said:

    I think one thing that is being missed is this: prosthetic explosives and explosive components have been used. A nipple ring is, on visual inspection, just a nipple ring. However, it can also be an obvious source of the metallic ping actually caused by the detonator hidden in the breast implant. You hide a purloined letter in plain sight. This is one of the reasons why screening, in itself, is insufficient. There must also be a capacity of the proposed victims to deal with someone who gets past the screening.

38. #38
    On March 29th, 2008 at 4:25 pm, beenthere said:

    A nipple ring is, on visual inspection, just a nipple ring. However, it can also be an obvious source of the metallic ping actually caused by the detonator hidden in the breast implant.

    Oh for heaven’s sake. If we’re going to get that paranoid about it (and BTW, the hypothetical breast explosive device could be triggered by squeezing the breast after all), why not just prevent all women from flying? Or better yet, order the mass hiring of “Boobie Squeezer Specialists,” complete with unions and pensions? People put rings in their noses, ears, and lips. Are we to worry that someone, by pulling a nose hair, will destroy a plane using the dreaded sinus bomb? And what is to prevent explosive devices being hid in various bodily orafices? The mind reels at the possibilities.

    I had no idea Eric Cartman was now in charge of airline security. There was no excuse for this disgusting and cruel action on the part of the TSA and the stupid “thinking” accompanying it.

39. #39
    On March 30th, 2008 at 8:38 pm, davidcaskey said:

    When are people going to get the fact that the TSA is not security. It is simply an agency that is in place to make you think they are doing something. In actual fact, it is very easy to circumvent the so called security at our airports. Someone dedicated to a terrorist act can get just about any type of weapon system on a plane. My feeling is that we eliminate the TSA, Homeland security and all the other idiotic agencies that pretend to do something. In their place we need a get tough policy on countries and groups that allow and encourage terror. That would translate to the fact that if SA citizens take a plane, then a SA city will be distroyed. In short, you hold a nation responsible for the acts of its citizens. Now what about those in our country that are prone to this activity? We could start by outlawing religions that condone violence.

40. #40
    On April 1st, 2008 at 2:20 am, palladin said:

    The actual article goes into quite a bit of detail about ‘removing’ body piercing. Apparently ‘nipple’ piercing (not sure about other areas) involves the formation of scar tissue and removing the item can be quite painful.

    It is not like ear piercing (or even nose piercing) which goes through unstressed flesh.

    (Note: I’m not a supporter of body modification/piercing (I think it looks tacky) . I just read the article and used common sense)

41. #41
    On April 1st, 2008 at 6:23 pm, Pixel_Dust_1776 said:

    On March 30th, 2008 at 8:38 pm, davidcaskey said:
    When are people going to get the fact that the TSA is not security. It is simply an agency that is in place to make you think they are doing something. In actual fact, it is very easy to circumvent the so called security at our airports. Someone dedicated to a terrorist act can get just about any type of weapon system on a plane. My feeling is that we eliminate the TSA, Homeland security and all the other idiotic agencies that pretend to do something. In their place we need a get tough policy on countries and groups that allow and encourage terror. That would translate to the fact that if SA citizens take a plane, then a SA city will be distroyed. In short, you hold a nation responsible for the acts of its citizens. Now what about those in our country that are prone to this activity? We could start by outlawing religions that condone violence.

    ………………………………..davidcaskey……….you sound like a typical terrorist. Convince the enemy of lack of danger, just enough for the terrorists to sneak thru……………nice try, no dice. Get some brain pills, would ya?
    By the way, we have a guy here that completed 20 years if faithful service in the Marine Corps…..he is a muslim….and a TSA offcer. I guess some of you jacka$$e$ wouldn’t give him the job since he’s a muslim.
    Rio
    Semper Fi!

42. #42
    On July 10th, 2008 at 8:55 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    I lean toward the sentiments of Pixel_Dust. Flight 93 proved that we as a people are quick to adapt to asymetrical methods of attack. I think the terrorists knew that their Sept 11, 2001 plan was a one time deal for them. There were reports early on that some terrorist operatives had infiltrated United and or American Airlines as agents, (or somehow obtained passenger lists), and called several passengers on some of the flights to tell them that their flight had been canceled or delayed. The ones they called all had a common attribute – young and male. If true then it is proof they were already anticipating the possibility of the response they got on Flight 93. I can’t imagine them attempting the exact same thing ever again without getting many more times the number of terrorists on board a flight – and all armed with real lethal weapons like a box cutter. Nipple rings that require a pair of pliers to remove do not even remotely come close to being a ‘lethal weapon’! If you aren’t allowed to carry a pair of pliers on board, how will the rings be removed let alone the question how will they be used to hijack an airplane? I don’t think the TSA can answer either of those two questions but it sure seems likely that many sheeple passengers are pleased to know that the TSA is ‘doing it’s job’.

43. #43
    On July 10th, 2008 at 8:58 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    I meant to post that I lean toward the sentiment of davidcaskey – not Pixel_Dust, (sorry..)