Letters to congress

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Actually, that might work in Arizona...

No, being against the TSA here is grounds for spending some quality time with a couple of Sheriff Joe's boys and their toys, in a nice sound-proof basement cell.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

On the whole, it's more effective than my idea.

Dear Congress Thing:

You can take your TSA and your "safety" and your authoritarianism, and jam it up your syphilis-pocked bunghole.  I sent you to congress to run the country, not crap all over the 4th Amendment.  Maybe you need to cut out the six martini lunches with those lobbyists and remember who the hell you're supposed to be working for.

We need the economy fixed, our infrastructure repaired, and enough power to keep the lights on in ten years, not a few senseless wars, insanity at the security checkpoints, and tampering with the US Constitution.  You get a nice salary, a guaranteed retirement, and all the congressional pages you can molest.  Now earn it.

Venomously Yours,
The Good Reverend Roger
Pastor, The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus. 

TGRR,
Going to Jail.

See that right there? Not quite the balanced letter LMNO has. But much more to the heart of the matter, with a direct stabbing motion . . . with something long, pointy, and poison-tipped.

[Cain]

Actually, that might work in Arizona...

No, being against the TSA here is grounds for spending some quality time with a couple of Sheriff Joe's boys and their toys, in a nice sound-proof basement cell.

But...but...how can that be?  Serious Liberals On TV have said that only the Teabaggers are upset about the TSA, and Sheriff Joe is practically a teabagger himself.

/snark

I know, we all know this, it just amazes when when I see something so obviously stupid said, and I have to work the stupid out of my system now.

[Triple Zero]

Love it!

Here's my feedback:

I am not concerned about the safety of the machines—it is readily obvious that in context of the various radiations (solar and otherwise) and carcinogens we are exposed to on a daily basis, the level of ionizing radiation in the machines is minimal.

Actually it is the testing to determine whether they pose a health danger or not, that has been minimal. These machines have not been subjected to the rigorous testing that hospital equipment (such as medical X-ray machines) require, while they do in fact deal with the same dangerous types of radiation. So the bottom line is, we do not know if they are safe or not. Yet we are assured that the amount of radiation is so low it couldn't possibly pose any significant risk. But how do they know that? They haven't been tested properly!
I don't know if you're familiar with the history of fuckups in hi-tech medical equipment, specifically if you heard about the THERAC-25 casus (we learned about it in Comp.Sci Ethics/Law classes as an example of liability and bad software design / testing). Bottom line is, the guy died because the machine wasn't properly tested, so nobody knew the safeguard against accidentally dealing out lethal doses of radiation didn't actually work.
And that, of course, is just one of the many ways in which a machine that is surely intended to emit an insignificant and completely safe amount of radiation can end up posing a significant health risk cause it's not tested properly. Additionally, there hasn't been done any proper research on the (long term) effects of dosage and backscatter type radiation, as opposed to regular X-rays.

ANYWAY

That doesn't really matter for your letter, because pointing all this out is kind of besides the point of the reasoning for your complaint, which is the 4th Amendment stuff below. So don't worry I understood that

However, flat out stating it is obvious that this machine is perfectly safe is a little bit bold, because you don't know either. Perhaps you could reword it so "If my government tells me it's safe, I see no reason not to believe them and place my full trust in them taking their responsibility having the best intentions in mind regarding my health and well-being" -- and if you can manage, perhaps a little bit less dripping with sarcasm.



Second feedback, this sentence:

Since we don't even know if these machines would be effective as a countermeasure to recent events, this is not even a case of responding to the last threat instead of the next, it is simply a fear driven slight-of-hand designed to establish an illusion of safety.

It kind of "runs away", if you get what I mean. Maybe split it up to make it a bit more digestible.



That is all great work anyhow!

[Requia ☣]

It should also be pointed out that these may not pose a risk to travelers, but still pose a *major* risk to the TSA agents (who are receiving lower doses, but for 8 hours a day).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It should also be pointed out that these may not pose a risk to travelers, but still pose a *major* risk to the TSA agents (who are receiving lower doses, but for 8 hours a day).

Boo hoo.

[Requia ☣]

Because the safety of low wage workers isn't a concern?  Aren't you the guy who put two managers in the corner for violating basic safety?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Because the safety of low wage workers isn't a concern?  Aren't you the guy who put two managers in the corner for violating basic safety?

Yep.  TSA = Nazis IMO, so I don't care about them.

[LMNO]

Trip, I understand the concerns you raise, but:

1) I am writing from the traveller's perspective, and unless they rub plutonium onto my skin, 10 seconds in a backscatter machine is waaaay less toxic than the amount of carcinogens I absorbed merely getting to the airport that day, and

2) In the case of political letters, I'm not above making sweeping generalizations if it helps me get to my main point.

[Requia ☣]

Trip, I understand the concerns you raise, but:

1) I am writing from the traveller's perspective, and unless they rub plutonium onto my skin, 10 seconds in a backscatter machine is waaaay less toxic than the amount of carcinogens I absorbed merely getting to the airport that day, and

This isn't exactly true, most radiation you get penetrates the entire body, backscatter radiation is all focused in the skin, so you're actually getting a substantially higher dosage in that concentrated area than the the same dosage if it was penetrating your body (none of the doctors that have brought this up are willing to commit to exactly how much higher).  This won't cause radiation sickness any faster, but it does increase the mutagenic effects.

[LMNO]

I'm going to have to use Trip's argument on this one, and say that you have absolutely no idea how much damage the backscatter is doing in proportion to all other toxins and carcinogens in the environment.

[Eater of Clowns]

I think you should remove "complain" in the intro line.  It's a red flag word that might honestly stop the reading right there.

ETA:  Sorry, I should have also mentioned I think it's very well done.  Not to fondle your balls or anything LMNO, but considering it was you that wrote it, that part pretty much goes without saying.

I'm wondering how effective it might be to frame the letter in the sense of it not only being a 4th Amendment issue but also a political opportunity to lead the charge against diminishing rights.  It's pretty clear these people don't care about the people or anything, so would an appeal to a career help?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think you should remove "complain" in the intro line.  It's a red flag word that might honestly stop the reading right there.

That's a good point...

[LMNO]

Substitute "complain" with "voice my concerns regarding"?

[Eater of Clowns]

Substitute "complain" with "voice my concerns regarding"?

Yeah, that'd work.  Striking "to complain" and you'd have "writing to you about" which would be alright as well.