Share your own for copy/paste ideas and suggestions!
Dear_________,
Now that the Thanksgiving holiday is over and the hue and cry has diminished, I am writing to you to complain about the new TSA screening measures, both the pat-downs and the backscatter machines.
Obviously, there has been a lot of talk about these measures, not all of it rational. Just to clear the air, 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. Nor am I concerned about any sort of nudity taboo. The naked human body is not sinful, and we as a society really need to drop some of the prudish attitudes of shame and guilt we attach to it.
No, the problems I have with the TSA measures are twofold. First, the pat-downs clearly strain the limits of the Fourth Amendment. The act of buying a plane ticket should not be considered a suspicious activity, and to consider all US citizens equally deserving of an invasive, uncomfortable search is clearly "unreasonable". And if we consider the search to be unreasonable, it should not matter whether it is made using a TSA official's hand, or a complicated piece of technology that accomplishes the same goal. It is the search itself, and not how it is conducted, that is objectionable.
Secondly, these measures do not make us any safer. While the new measures do indeed make it more inconvenient to sneak contraband onto an airplane, it seems we have forgotten that the goal of a terrorist is not grand theft aviation, it is to cause mayhem, disruption, and death in as large a theater as possible, as easily as possible. I'm sure I don't need to go into any details more explicit than to point out that the July 4, 2009 attack in LAX took place at the ticket counter, not at the security checkpoint. In addition to that, there are still questions as to whether a backscatter body scan would have detected the explosives of the so-called "underwear bomber", as reported in NPR and elsewhere. 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.
Because these new measures encroach on the Fourth Amendment while failing to decrease the likelihood of a terrorist attack, I request that you and your colleagues act to change the laws regarding TSA screenings. Please do not let hysteria rob us of our constitutional protections in the name of an illusion.
Your constituent,
[edit for content and spelling]
I like it, I'd revise the first paragraph though. Get rid of stuff on the naked body and get to the point.
Dear Constituent
Stop hating America. Why do you want the terrorists to win?
Your Congress Thing,
_________
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 02:13:18 PM
I like it, I'd revise the first paragraph though. Get rid of stuff on the naked body and get to the point.
I see your point. I was trying to speak against those who object to the scanner because of "OMG! NEKKID PICS!"
Suggestions?
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 02:13:53 PM
Dear Constituent
Stop hating America. Why do you want the terrorists to win?
Your Congress Thing,
_________
Less likely for us. I have a hard time seeing John Kerry sending that back. Barney Frank, maybe, but only cuz he's got personality.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 02:18:59 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 02:13:18 PM
I like it, I'd revise the first paragraph though. Get rid of stuff on the naked body and get to the point.
I see your point. I was trying to speak against those who object to the scanner because of "OMG! NEKKID PICS!"
Suggestions?
Very well written. I would say that it makes sense to point out you don't object on the nudity grounds but perhaps just take out the sentence talking about the issues with Americans being prudish. It's a minor thing but it might be a bit of a letter-jack.
Cool. Striking the last sentence.
very soundly worded
Also, I'm definitely putting that into a Word document and shipping it off to Collins and Snowe. I think I'll get some sympathy from Collins. I have it on good authority she's not a big fan of the TSA. She's had some, shall we say, run-ins with them.
I'm not even sure if T. F. Green has backscatters yet, but I know Logan does. If Green doesn't have them, this may help to stop.
Fourth Amendment, not Forth.
Motherfucker.
Thanks for the catch. I was almost gonna seal the envelopes and everything.
Third paragraph, first line - the amendment is still the 'Forth'.
Otherwise, this is great. If it had been me I'd have thrown a bitch and whine in there about giving in to pressure by buying shit that doesn't work from people invested in the actual shit that doesn't work. And I'd probably have asked at what point the government decided to encourage sexual assault on children and adults . . . but that would not be conducive to being an adult in the conversation. I like the way you handled it, LMNO. Logical and concerned, without being a hate-filled, finger-pointing, blame-y bastard. It's a balance I have a hard time finding. :P
On the whole, it's more effective than my idea.
QuoteDear 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.
Actually, that might work in Arizona...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 05:15:34 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 05:13:07 PM
On the whole, it's more effective than my idea.
QuoteDear 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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 05:19:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 05:15:34 PM
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.
:mittens:
Love it!
Here's my feedback:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 02:11:28 PMI 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25) (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:
QuoteSince 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!
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).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 01, 2010, 06:11:35 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 01, 2010, 06:19:34 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 06:28:07 PM
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 01, 2010, 10:20:21 PM
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...
Substitute "complain" with "voice my concerns regarding"?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 02, 2010, 12:30:56 AM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 06:28:07 PM
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
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 06:45:13 PM
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.
Exactly, we don't know.
Quote2) In the case of political letters, I'm not above making sweeping generalizations if it helps me get to my main point.
How about dripping sarcasm? :)
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 02, 2010, 12:34:53 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 02, 2010, 12:30:56 AM
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.
how about "this is in regards to my concerns"
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 02:11:28 PM
it is simply a fear driven slight-of-hand designed to establish an illusion of safety.
It's "sleight-of-hand". Otherwise, i like it. Lots of good suggestions.