What Was Reported
In His Words
2. In your comment, follow each of the following steps. Label each step:
Step a) How are the two articles the same? How are they different? WHY? Consider their sources, their authors, and their intended purposes.
Again this week, each sentence in your original comment and your comments to your peers must start with a different word.
Step b) In a thoughtful analysis, describe why you think that the pilot's actions were justified, or conversely, out of line. Cite a minimum of three specific examples from the story (with quotations) and one from example from any other source (literature, movies, sports, your life, etc.). Provide your rationale.
*Deadline: Monday, October 25th at midnight
3. Respond to at least two of your classmates' comments by completing the following steps:
Step a) State whether you agree or disagree with the writer's standpoint on the pilot's decisions.
Step b) Provide any three concrete examples of your choice to support your decision. They need not be lengthy, but there must be three. Why? THREE = BALANCE.
Step c) End your comment with a question for the writer to consider.
-->Remember: Each sentence in your comments to your peers must begin with a different word.
*Deadline: Friday, October 29th at midnight4. Remember the guidelines for grammar, spelling, propriety, etc. Note: I really enjoy reading your posts. You (the collective classes) are doing well. :-)
*Thank you, Chris Duff-Harper, for pointing me to this blog topic!
Step A: The two articles are similar because they both state that the pilot refused to go through the new scanners. They are different because although they state personal views on both the pilot and the reporter, the reporter’s views are, what is he hiding? What makes him so scared to go through the scanners? Michael Roberts, the pilot, takes a different view. He sees no reason why these new scanners must be put into effect. His take on the situation is he has been going through the same airport for the past three and a half years and he hasn’t run into a problem until now, so why is everyone making such a big deal out of this situation? Mr. Roberts believes that it violates his civil rights, having his naked body examined fully by security every day on his way to work.
ReplyDeleteStep B: I believe the pilot was right in this case, because it does violate your civil rights. How would you like to have a job that requires you to take a plane there every day and have to go through a full body check while trying to get there? It wouldn’t be very comfortable. Yes, you might get used to it if you do it enough, but there will always be the haunting thought that no matter how many times you have done it, there will be someone there to look at your nude body to check for smuggled weapons and drugs. Mr. Roberts quotes: “I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly.” He is outraged that the government wants to check his body for anything smuggled in this manner.The recent attempted bombing of a man that smuggled a bomb into his underwear scared the general public fo a while, and many people were afraid to get on a plane after that.Another example would be the other person who put a bomb into his shoes and then passed through security, but was caught at the checkpoint. Roberts believes that there are other ways to checking a person without violating their civil rights. He thinks the old scanners where you just walk through would be sufficient enough. However, he might want to consider this question: What is the price that we are willing to pay for our protection? Would you still want to use the old scanners even though you knew that they couldn't see if you were hiding anything in your rectum? Would you still feel safe then?
STEP A: they are different because in the first article the author is very blunt in explaing what happened. There is no emotion or real explanation to what really happened. The second article is straight from the pilots himself. So you get the real feeling and emotion behind every word. You begin to understand him and understand why he said the things he said or did the things he did. I completely agree with him. Hearing from him is better in the fact that you get the first hand explanation behind everything that happened. You get the reasoning and emotion in the second article that you just don’t get in the first article.
ReplyDeleteSTEP B: I completely agree with the pilot. His actions were most definitely justified. He didn't like the fact that he had to go through a machine that basically stripped you. "These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching)." he also believed that his personal rights were being abused, and he did not like that. I would not either. “No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society.” He asks questions regaurding why he has to be detained so many time sa nd thinks its wrong. Its wrong to be detained just because you refused to go through a “virtual strip search” and have you personal rights abused. “Am I under arrest?” I asked.
“No, he just needs to ask you some more questions.”
“But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?”
“We just need to hold you here so he can…”
“Hold me in what capacity?” I insisted.
“Detain you while we…”
Okay, so now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility. I agree with the pilot. I most definetley would not want to be violated the way all those peeople were. Regardless. They can find a more effectyive way of handling that type of search. Put yourself in his position. Would you like it? I sure wouldn’t.
Step A: The articles are similar in the point that both speak about this problem in a Houston airport that a pilot refused to be scanned. However, they are completely because the msn article is a secondary source ,while the second article is a primary source because it was written by an eyewitness. Any news article has limited insight into what actually occurred, since it is meant for public purposes. An article, such as the second one, has a greater probability of being correct, since nothing has a reason to be hidden.
ReplyDeleteStep B: In my opinion, the pilot's actions were out of line. What ever is done in an "international" place, such as an airport, needs no justification since it's pretty obvious why it is being done. No one should be exempt from a full body scan, not even a pilot. The pilot justifies that he felt "molested" and that further scans shall be stopped. Since September 11th our country cannot be "too safe". So, people might as well just put up with these "feelings" of molestation unless they would like to die crashing into the Chrysler Building. This is being done for the safety of the passengers and the safety of those on land.
Step A: The two articles are very different. First of all, in the first article the report miss a lot of detail on what actually happened. Second of all in the second article it showing the person point of view. it demostrating the emotion he felt being in that stitutation. Finally, one can understand what the pilot was going through when just trying to go to work.
ReplyDeleteStep B: i totally agree with the pilot. Moreover the way he handle the situtation was justified. For example when he said "These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months,... extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching)" he thought that it was viloting his right to see what hi was hiding. Also, the converstation he had with the officer was not necessary due to the fact he just went through it with other officer and he has all the right to be pissed off. Robert says "When I asked why, he said they needed information for their report on this “incident” – my name, address, phone number, etc. I recited my information for him, until he asked for my supervisor’s name and number at the airline. Why did he need that, I asked." he was just trying to figure out why he was being stop and not one of them was inforimg why it was being done. All in all he action he took on handleing the situtation were the right steps because it violate people rights.
Step A) The two articles are the same by their explanation of the incident. For instance, they both stated that the pilot refused to go through both security procedures. After reading and watching both articles I have come to the conclusion that each article has been done for their sake. Each article was done in the way to either protect the company or protect Mr. Roberts. For example, in the video we see Tom Costello ask “what was he hiding that he… didn’t want to be found?” This question is completely reasonable adding logos and ethos. It is reasonable to think that if someone is refusing to go through any security process, they may have something to hide. On the contrary, Roberts says “I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats,… you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time…” Mr. Roberts, states that the only reason why he does not want to go through the screening or the tap down is because he does not wish to be “frisked”.
ReplyDeleteStep B) National security is vital to all of us, it does not matter how long you have been working for 4 years or a hundred; national security is necessary. I believe the pilot’s actions were out of line, completely. Refusing to be put through any process of security, alarms the passengers. What would you think if your pilot, seemingly, was hiding something by not wanting to go through the screening nor the tap down? Would you feel safe after the events that have occurred during this past decade, more specifically, year?
A)What was reported and what he said are on the same subject but have different information and opinions on the matter. Reporters have limited information, but a witness knows a lot more information. We all want our rights and so does he, which is his opinion on the matter. Seeing only regulations and what you would expect to be the normal procedures are the reporters.
ReplyDeleteB)The pilot's actions were justified because they infringed upon his rights with the "(virtual strip searching)" or being "frisked by a government securaty agent" when he should be a trusted pilot. He odveously has years of experience because he said, "I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident." I have come to the conclusion that if officers can't trust an experienced pilot then we are in a sad state of affairs; he says, "...now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility," this shows they can't trust him enough to just let him leave. Mr. Roberts said he was worried about "the greater threat to our rights and liberties," when astonishingly the officer said, "But somebody's already taken those away." In the Civil War the Union soldiers were invading Southerner's homes, stealing, and burning them down. That didn't give them any rights and even when they came back into the Union they were still tring to limit their rights, which is not unlike Robert's predicament.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA.) These two articles, they are obviously speaking of the same man who refuses a body scan. In the first article that is written by the press, they make everything very short and simple. So, when this article is being read the reader might think, "This guy is a fool, why can't he just get the scan? It's not a big deal." But when reading the second website, where the man himself states his opinions, others opinions might also change. The reason being is that,Michael Roberts, writes how he felt about being doubted and having to be scanned, even though he's been working their for some years. When he adds "...watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards", it makes it seem like the government are the bad guys, for violating the people to the extreme.
ReplyDeleteB.) Roberts' story is a big fuzz, but it shouldn't be. If he has"..passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident", then why is he making a bigger deal of it now. I mean, he should not have anything to hide. And being "virtually stripped" is not the proper way to present what the security is doing, its not like they choose to look at naked passengers for their pleasure or present to everyone waiting in line; they do this to protect their country. I know this sounds really wicked of them to do, but they just have to be really alert. People these days are very crazy, and are capable of putting harmful weapons in unpleasant places just to injure the life's of innocent people. So, if Mr. Roberts has nothing to hide, i say he should just pass through what they need him to do, and go on with the rest of his day.
A)
ReplyDeleteBoth articles talk about the incident with the pilot, Michael Roberts refusing to be scanned. Both articles are defending their side of the story. In the first article, it's not really explained what really happened. They don't note the reasons why Michael Roberts didn't want to be scanned. The first article is mostly to keep people entertained. In the second article, it is explained by the pilot, Michael Roberts himself. He states the reasons why he didn't want to go through the scanner. The second article has every event that happened that day. The second article is for people who want to know what really happened and why. Its being told for people who have been in the same situation Michael Roberts was in or whoever agrees with him.
B)
I believe the pilot, Michael Roberts was out of line because he should know why are the reasons airports have national security. Michael Roberts states that he felt "molested" and that all body scans should be stopped. Without scanners it would be like "September 11" all over again. Like Tom Costello said in the video, “what was he hiding that he didn’t want to be found?" That made Michael Roberts look suspicious. National Securities are just to keep passengers safe and everyone should be scanned no matter who they are.
Step A) These two articles are similar because they state the same story, somewhat. Pilot did not want to be scanned because he was uncomfortable with it. Differences are that the point of views are told in a different light. The news report shows the pilot as someone who is possibly "hiding something." Roberts, the pilot, says that the officials were unlawfully holding him for no reason. That is because each saw the other as an enemy. Roberts saw the TSA as a group trying to take his rights. TSA saw Michael as an enemy to peoples safety.
ReplyDeleteStep B)I personally believe that Michael Roberts is in the right. He believed that the officials were violating the peoples rights and that "The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within." Saying that government officials are the ones that are slowly taking our rights away. Some may argue that and quote the airport police chief who said, "somebody’s already taken those away." But if one refers to the story, "1984" and recalls that Winston lived in a society where every right was taken away. Every right was extinct and everything was scanned and watched over. Think about it, can we allow this "tyrannical madness" to go on and spread? Will we allow this to envelop our liberal country and extinguish our freedom that is given to us by birth? AIT programs leading up to a society like that of "1984" are possible because to scan ones body and reveal a nude body is perverse. Should this be acceptable? absolutely not. Hence the reason why I side with Michael Roberts, for I would rather have my rights then be under strict rule and have to be exposed to a strangers eyes without my complete consent. Why should we pay for the actions of others?
A)The two articles are similar because they both address the issue of full-body scanners. However, they are different because they are told in two different perspectives: the media's and the airline pilot's. Michael Roberts(pilot)told the story in a way that made the federal securities seem like the bad guys, but when the media reported it, it seemed like the pilot was just refusing to follow instructions.
ReplyDeleteB)Roberts's actions were reasonable. He did not want his privacy to be violated("I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty."), he was not used to the new routine("I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident."), and he agreed to go through the metal detector instead of the full-body scanner("...I had passed through the metal detector..."). I agree with the pilot not wanting to take off his shoes because I once had to and it felt really weird.
step A) The two articles are very much alike they both talk about the privacy amongst each other and how they were accused of suspicion even if they were working as pilot for quiet some while now the liberties in our nation have been very sensitive ever since 9/11, rules and airline regulations have changed the privacy polices of everyone including the people that do work their. In the two articles they were refusing to go through such extreme measures Michael roberts however in the video was refusing all regulations of safety which stirred up controversy of why knowing his job as a pilot refuse to be patted down and searched , as in the other article he was trying to be more understanding but didn't think it was neseccary to do the new procedure he was just trying to prove his point that it doesn't need to get that far and knowing he worked their for almost five years.
ReplyDeletestep B) However all rules need to be followed they just need to take the type of equipment of people's privacy a little less of an extrem measure.Mr. Roberts was trying to prove his point but they weren't really giving him a reason of all the questions, all the information they were interrogating him with, Obviously they had their reasons to investigate him but my point is he was willing to compromise“No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society.” Their are always their side and Roberts side of the story and an arguement but was it all necessary?
Step A: There are many differences and simmilaraties between these two articles. for example in the first article it clearly shows how the reporter lacks key information regarding the situation. then moreover in the second article it is conveying how everything is being described in first person point of view, and it is showing how he felt being in that stitutation.
ReplyDeleteStep B: im my opinion i think everything he did was reasonable he didnt want to be bothered with or his stuff to be messed with. and from expereince it is very embarrasiong when you are pulled to the side in front everybody and is forced to do what they say("i stated that i do have a problem with my integrity and civil rights"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStep a) These articles are the same but at the same time they are different. A similar comparison is that both articles explain Mr. Robertons" case. They both also explain the procedures that must be taken while abroading a plane. the difference between the two is that both articles have different claims. The first article, "What Was Reported", was attacking Mr. Roberts' actions. Mr. Costello accusses Mr. Roberts of hiding something. While the article, "In His Words", Mr Roberts defends himself and claims on being a victim.
ReplyDeleteStep b) Mr. Roberts was just making a big deal out of a little thing. He was given to choices and he refused them. That was no ones fault, but his own. A claimed was done by Mr. Roberts saying that TSA, "physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them". The government doesnt not want to harass a person, they are here to protect their country not to violate others. AIT is a machine used for seeking harmful weapons and nothing else, but Mr. Roberts makes it sound like its a porn show by saying, "And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time." Roberts also makes the audience believe he doesn't care about anything, "But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly.” In the qoute above, shows nothing of concern for his job being at hold or about his liberty of rights. A little problem here as big turn to a bigger and unnecessary problem.
well both these articals are slightly different because they have different points of view.both articals are talking about the same guy and same situation.except one of these articals has more information thanthe other.the first one gave more facts and the second one gave more of an opinion and fact.
ReplyDeleteI dont think the guy should have been treated like this.like in the story that the guy presented is that he asks the guy if hes being detained and the guy denies it but then he accepts it.it was wierd the way he was being treated.
A)The two articles are the same because, they both talk about Micheal Roberts, the Pilot who didn't want to go though the (AIT). He as also the reporters, express the concerns about Micheal the pilot, and how he didn't want to be handled, frisked, or seen naked. That is understandable, Who would want to be touched all over? Or even worse expose your naked body to people you see everyday, when going though the metal detector.
ReplyDeleteThere different because, The first article (the one with the video) The reporters talk about, because he a pilot he should know why they take so much precaution. That is understandable, but what they failed to mention is that he had been a pilot there for five years, he has never had an issue other times, and how he never broke the law at the same airline, his been working at for years. This means he has been known by those people for a while. That is where recognition, trust, and strait up over exaggeration of the people who wanted to check him comes in, if he really was going to bomb the plane, would he have done it earlier?
B)Micheal's, actions were justified. He is only human, and is getting tired of being put though the same process over and over. When he refused to have a body examination, it seem like he was hiding something, but in reality who would feel comfortable not only showing there naked body, but touched by people they have known for years. I believe the way he reacted to the situation was appropriate, because, If he had been working in the airline for five years, never broke the law or had any past issues about working there, or going though the detector, and he put is job on the line, What would be the reason to explode a plane? He was just a man who was tired of being handled everyday he goes to work.
Step a) Both of these articles are talking about the same issue. the issue that was brought up in these articles was that a guy name Michael Roberts rejected the full body search. Robert rejected the full body search because he thought it was to much, he even passed metal detector and still didn’t let him go through. the only differences between these two article, which is really huge, is that the article What was Reported was in third person. In His Word was done in first person. the article What was Reported is talked by what the people thought or opinions about the situation, and not even care what was really going on or why Robert do what he had to do. the In His Word was more about what happen to him . it was more detail of what was going on what his thoughts why he did.
ReplyDeleteStep b) In the case that Robert was in, in my opinion it was the right thing to do. In the article In His Word, Robert quoted, “I had willingly walked through the metal detector with no alarms,” even though he pass the metal detector they wanted him, a pilot, to do some more body search, which is the virtual body search. Robert thought it was to personal and to much for them to do that, that’s why he refused to do it. “I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident” Robert felt very not trusted, he has been doing the same routine for more than four years and one day they told him to take a full body search. What if that happens to you? You been going to school everyday taking the same supplies and dress up similar clothing everyday, and one day a teacher of yours might think you have drugs on you and calls security with no proof. They didn’t let you have your rights to defend yourself and they just kicked you out of school. You might feel like you been cheated or not trusted that you have drugs on you or not.
Step a)
ReplyDeleteThese articles are the same in the way of what happened to them. All sides of the articles felt harassed n some ways that they were outraged to an extent. Their differences lie in their intended purposes. The first article’s purpose is to inform on the situation that a person can go through security unquestioned and not “harassed” by following orders of the new systems or simply stating “no” for privacy reasons.
Step b)
Roberts’ actions were justifies for his regular arrival for work should not be delayed due to new systems. Even though the security agents “were just doing their job,” a person’s privacy is being tainted with by these new machines that are able to see inappropriate parts of the body only for security purposes. Because the pilot “had made…threats… [and] given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating” the pilot, he was unable to attend his work. As much as he understands that the job that is being done by the interrogators, he does not feel he should have to be checked in a more graphic manner when he has always “passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident.” His actions are just as justifies in protecting his privacy just as I am justifies to wear secure and protective clothing to protect the privacy of my body.
@ Maria Barajas:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you to a degree, Maria, when you say he was out of line. Your statement is strong, but it doesn’t completely agree with what the pilot says. He states that he feels it is a violation of his civil rights, and although it is true what you say about it is obviously being done for a reason; he is entitled to his opinions and actions without having to be judged, right? If it is out in the media, then it kind of can’t be helped: it is natural instinct to judge people, but it can also be unnecessary. We should be able to fell secure out in public without worrying if we will be judged. The new scanners were put into place to protect the people on land and in the air, but this goes back to what I said in my comment: he had been passing through the same airport for the past five years. Suddenly, these new scanners were put into effect and he makes a statement about it, and then the wrong people heard about it and blow it out of proportion: it started out as simply an opinion of the scanners, and turned into a national controversy. Overall, I think you did really well defending yourself. Good job! :]
@ Alejandra:
I agree with what you said in Step A, about how his views on the matter may change others’ opinions, after they have been exposed to the first news story (the video). It does make it seem as though the government are the bad guys, but unless both sides are reviewed before an opinion is formed, that opinion may not be what they really meant. I really like the way you defended yourself in Step B, too. It’s not very often you can find someone to do it the way you did, and I commend you for that. Also, although he had been passing through the same airport for roughly five years, he suddenly was subjected to a “virtual strip search”, and he was just voicing his opinions on the newly arisen matter. I’m not trying to defend his actions, but I can totally understand where he is coming from. However, there is one snag I think he didn’t think about when he first refused to pass through the new scanner. He is not the only one that was being subjected to pass through: there were others as well. His nude body was probably no different than any of the others that were viewed by security, so he didn’t really make any sense in his actions there. Overall, I really liked you comment. Good Job! :]
Step A: Similarities between the articles were that they both go over the same incident with roughly the same details. Differences I found were that the pilot's account was definitely more specific and went through the finer details. The pilot's account also went through a lot of the dialogue that went on between him and the security officers, which were not added into the official report.
ReplyDeleteStep B: I know that the pilot is concerned about "the infringement of my civil rights and liberty", but he must understand that these procedures are necessary for everyone. There have just been too many attempts at blowing up planes, among other things, to let people on without checking procedures. If the procedure is overly intrusive, I would understand, but the officers are not asking you to strip down to your bare body right there and then. Instead, they are asking him to walk into the AIT scanner that he reports to "enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching)". Unfortunately, this is necessary with threats like "would-be terrorist Richard Reid set his shoes on fire". Additionally, the only people seeing the image are a few screeners that probably don't even care what you look like anyways. Plus, they see thousands of people each day as they use the airport. What makes you think that they would save your picture and make fun of it later? First of all, they can't and secondly, the images flash by after a quick going over. In my opinion, while the pilot's stance is understandable, it is wrong and he needs to go through the scanner just like everyone else if we want to keep our airways safe. "We, as the American people, can not let another attack like the terrorist plane hi-jacking of 9/11 ever happen again" (me speaking).
A)
ReplyDeleteThe similarities of the two articles is that the pilot refused to get searched. The first artice is straight to the point and not that many details are given. The pilot is being acused of hiding some thing thats the reason he was getting searched. It is dirrent because in the second article it comes from the pilot himself. He gives the reason for his actions and not wanting to get searched.
B)
I agree with the pilot's action. He should of been treated diffrently, but rules are rule. They are meant for a reason. If there was not any rules the airpor would be in kaos.
A----They are the same in that they both deal with the same topic but other than that they are completely different point of views. One shows the opinions of the public towards such a serious controversy. The other shows the victims defense towards this situation. Both state some of the simple facts; the pilot refused to get scanned. One source is from the media and their job is top make things interesting so they brought in a second source and asked questions like "he knew this is what goes on everyday and if he cant deal with it he should have found another job". The second source is more primary because it came from the victim and he wrote that to clear up his story and get the real facts out.
ReplyDeleteB----The pilot felt like his personal space was being disturbed and he had every right to try and question why. His actions were justified by the need of some physical barrier between his co-workers and himself. The pilot's emotions were hust as he said after they had called his boss "It’s probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged", he says. He had also made it clear to the investigator why he was so uncomfortable as he tells the investigator "I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty." The investigator also rudely started questioning rudely the pilot and the pilot had nothing to say except “Really? What do you mean I ‘should know better’? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?”.
Step A: Both articles are similar because they adressed the same problem that happen in the airport. They are also different because they express different views on the situation. The first article is a secondary source, while the second article is a primary source. This changes events though because in the first article the news reporter criticizes Michael Roberts' situation but lets say that the reporter was put in the same situation, maybe his opinion would have changed.
ReplyDeleteStep B: In my opinion the pilot's actions were justified. When he was being question for the second time, the pilot simply stated that he had a problem with the infrigement of his civil rights and liberty. The TSA investigator simply replied “That’s irrelevant,” how is it irrelevant that he is concerned for HIS civil rights. He felt uncomfortable "when they wanted to create images" of his unclothed body and touch him in unpersonal ways. I believed that he was treated unfairly when the TSA investigator said "if you’re an instructor, then you should know better," it was rude to jump to conclusions and say that he had to think about his actions when he in fact did. Sure there are some past events in which passengers hide weapons under their clothing but there are other ways to check them, while not violating their rights.
Step A: The articles are similar in the matter they they are both addressing the same problem within the airport. The difference is that both articles are from different perspectives. The event occurred without any press so Mr. Roberts testimony is the only one that could be truthful.
ReplyDeleteStep B: The Pilots actions were justified. The airport security was threatening his rights. "I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty.His reply: “That’s irrelevant.”" This shows that his rights weren't in their best interests. "I suppose my employment status at this point can best be described as on hold." Mr. Roberts was being punished for standing up for himself. This is not the American way, nor is it the human way. "Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium" when translated means,"Were there a nation of gods, their government would be democratic. Such perfect government is not for men."(Livejournal.com) Mr. Roberts is losing faith in his country.
A)
ReplyDeleteBoth articles talk about the pilot rufusing going through the new scanner and the goint through the second option because he felt that he was being harrassed by the federal agents and afraid that the new scanner was going to show his genitalia.The way ther are different is in the first one talks of what happened through someone elses perspective and the other one is through his words of what happened.
B)
I think that his actions were put of line because he knew he had to go through the scanner and the federal govermaent wanteded to show how the scanner worked. Also, they wanted to make sure that everything was safe and wanted to take precotions. How was he going to de afraid that they were going to see his private parts.
Step A: The first article, the one that was reported by the news people gives a very brief description of what had happened at the airport when a pilot named Micheal refused to go through a screening.The rest was only about the news reporters giving their own opinions in the situation and thinking of a reason as to why he would refuse screening without any evidence.Then the second article that was a first person narrative by Micheal gives very descriptive details about everything that had happened.From the start when he refused to put his shoes through the x-ray, to the part where he was let go by the airport security chief.Both articles talk about the main thing that had happened at the airport, and how the pilot refused to be scanned.As well as how the pilot might lose his job or, for the meanwhile will not be driving a plane soon.
ReplyDeleteStep B:I believe that Micheal did have a reason to refuse screening.The first reason that supports Micheal being justified is that the agent that Micheal had told that he refused to put his shoes through the x-ray. The agent had let him proceed to where he needed to be but had asked for help by security agents saying,"We got an opt-out!"Then when Micheal was released by the security and was very close to exiting the airport when he is stopped by the security airport chief and being held against his will. Micheal himself says,"But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?”As he is being interrogated by the interrogator Micheal is no longer concerned about his refusal to a body check but now worried about the "threat to the people's rights and liberties" as said by Micheal in his side of the story.The interrogator had responded with,"But somebody’s already taken those away".If there is a problem that you believe needs to be resolved and you discover an even greater problem then there was in the beginning,then it seems that you were right to try to resolve the problem(from me).
A) These two article are similar in that they both deal with the same issude: inspection at the airport. They are different because the men in each had different views on the new airport security. It also differs because they are two different people in two different places. They are similar probably because many people everywhere have the same issue, as well as the same view as these two men do. The purpose is to show people that they can stand up for themselves no matter what situation they are placed in. People have rights and I consider that a violation of human rights.
ReplyDeleteB) Both pilots had every right to fight against being searched through those new scanners. That is a violation of someone's privacy. The scanners are a good thing up to the point where they see past your clothes. Just because someone refuses to get checked by that scanner does not mean that they have something to hide. It can mean they have rights that are represented by their actions. Being said one thing and have people do another can be very annnoying. That is the case with the man heading to work, and being checked by this new security system after five years of working in the same place. “No, he just needs to ask you some more questions.” What more questions can they ask about his motives. They acquired much information from him yet, he is still asked to stay. What other purpose can he serve there: none! “That’s irrelevant.” How can something like a problem with infringement of civil rights be irrelevant? If I was in the position of any of these two men, I would have probably tried and handle the situation in the same manner as they did.
Step A: The articles are kind of the same because they both talking about the same problem in the airport. They differ as well because they're viewed from different angles.
ReplyDeleteStep B: “We got an opt-out!” I think that Michael was right to refuse from being screened because it was his decision. “But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?” He was released by the security then tooken into custody again. “No, he just needs to ask you some more questions." That basically is a nice way of saying were gonna most likely arrest you. I think Michael's actions were justified.
Step A: The news video and the personal statement of the pilot Michael Roberts both discuss some of the new issues in our society. Both discuss the issue of airport security; however both of them differ on how and how it should be done. The media displays it as a necessary measure while Mr. Roberts displays it as a hassle. When I was viewing both sides I just got another point to strengthen my claim that the media never displays the whole truth no matter how much they say that it is the complete truth.
ReplyDeleteStep B: Americans enjoy a special privilege called basic rights and these basic rights mean freedom. Many people believe that they are losing their basic rights due to uprisings like these. In my opinion I think what Michael Roberts did was out of line. I can understand him feeling subjected to unnecessary detection devices, however he has to understand that this is the safety for a hundred to thousands to millions of people. People who want to harm us are coming up with new ways to attempt to achieve this and for this reason we have to stay ahead of them. While I may not understand the procedure I am aware that a certain person attempted to blow his inner organs in an airplane. In a different incident one person actually lit his shoe on fire; the people on board were saved by a certain passenger who tackled him. After these incidents don’t people think that the government has the right to set these protocols in place so we can remain protected? The pilot’s private parts were not being viewed by security, and this protocol is to keep people safe. An accident not only causes immediate loss, but also psychological terror, and this are something the government tries to protect the American public from. “He’s a pilot and the question is clearly has to be asked, would he be comfortable with the passengers behind him” and “3,000 people died on 9/11” was stated by one of the people interviewed on MSNBC. Would the pilot trust them if they went in with no screening or would he be nervous? I believe it would be the latter after the occurrence of all the unfortunate events. The same person also said “he doesn’t have any ground to sue on,” the court knows that protection of humans is important and thus this person does not have a ground to stand on. It is said that mankind has to go through hassles like this since we can’t all get along, however since we must do it, then we should look for safety for ourselves and others and not be selfish.
Step A: The two articles are the same because they both state the same problem that happened at the Memphis airport. They are different because there are different view points at hand. The first article is told in third person and the second article is told in first person. The first article was more detailed than that of the second.
ReplyDeleteStep B: The pilot did not want to participate in the scanner because he felt that he was being violated. I think that the search was necessary because they are trying to protect the planes, and the people. There have been planes that have been blown up. An example would be 9/11. The pilot was concerned that "No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I'm more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society." He needs to respect the procedures at hand because the officers are trying to make it safe for everyone. He also states that," I cannot refrain here from expressing my dismay and heartbreak over a civil servant's personal resignation to the loss of civil liberty among the people by whom he is employed to protect and serve." Well in my words, they are protecting,protecting you and everyone else. "I conceded watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards." I get that you are getting virtually naked, but who else is going to see it other than the screeners. They probably virtually checked a lot of people. They probably don't care what they see. They are just doing their job.
A) These two articles are the same. This is because they both spoke about the regulations at the airport and how the are getting way too personal and private. However, these reports are also different. They each made me feel a different way. For example, in the first article, I kept asking myself, "What does he have to hide? Is he dangerous? What is making him so scared?" But in the second article, I agreed with everything the speaker said and almost got as aggravated as he did when he was stopped in the airport.
ReplyDeleteB)I believe that the new airport regulations are getting too personal. The new device that was stated in the second article, the one that can see through clothes, the AIT system, can make a person feel self-conscience and feel like the government is demeaning them. It is "virtual stripping" and is a violation of our rights. And even though this issue of being careful is understandable, the fact of it is, there are other ways to catch a person who is on the verge of doing something evil. Using these "controversial devices" are just going to create problems within airports and create people to riot.
a) These articles are the same because they are telling the same basic story. They differ in that the story is being told in two different points of view. TSA saw him as a possible threat that must be taken in for custody. While, Roberts tells his story as a man that lived an injustice and wants things to go back to normal.
ReplyDeleteb) I agree with Michael Robert’s because he only wanted his privacy. No consideration over him was being taken; they did not take the time to at least here this man out. Instead, they ignored his opinions and viewed what he said were his rights as “irrelevant”. Then they began to see him not as a human but as a threat. “What was he hiding that he didn’t necessary wanted to be found?” Since he did not comply with their demands, they began to think of all the awful possibilities that could have led him to do this, other than the reason of being uncomfortable. “If he doesn’t like being frisked and going through security then he should find another line of work,” because of standing up for what he believes him now they want him to give up and leave his work. Like people down in history, he is standing up for what he believes is the right thing and is not letting anyone change his mind.
Step A: These two articles are similar in the fact that they both state a problematic situation. However, there are two different perspectives; one from the media and one from the victim himself. Most people find that what Michael Roberts was endangering many airport passengers by refusing to enter a screening. He knew of the other possible bombings, though he still refused to take on the safety procedures. On the other hand, Roberts felt as though his rights were taken away, which is very understandable.
ReplyDeleteStep B: In my opinion, the pilot’s actions were out of line. Yes, it is understandable that one would want to refuse to go through a full body scan due to lack of privacy, but if it means the assurance of safety from the passengers, by all means, it should be done. Tom Costello questioned, “Would he be comfortable with his own passengers behind him refusing to go through the proper TSA check points and then being on the plane with him?” This question makes complete sense and I think that Roberts should take this thought into consideration. With the other potential bombings, full body scans can be a mandatory procedure to keep all passengers as safe as possible.
Step a) Both articles were the same because, they were about the same situation and man. Source (a) was what the news reported to the public. While the second source came from the pilot himself. You quickly notice that the news report is accusing of the pilot being a threat to the airlines and in the pilot's story he had a more explanatory argument unlike the report even though it may be biased.
ReplyDeletestep b) Michael S. Roberts actions seemed justified because with the recent suicide bombing the security is more thorough to prevent future tragedy but, at the same time taking away he privacy of the people who fly. he is uncomfortable with others virtually seeing his body "you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked. "( i too would be uncomfortable with this new technology .http://consumerist.com/2010/08/courthouse-in-florida-has-35000-body-scans-of-citizens.html) his discomfort with being frisked makes him prefers not to enter his work building. "i don't want to enter the facility that bad." the pilot felt that the ait scanner was not necessary but also said "I'm more concerned with the greater threats to our rights and liberties as a free society."
a) Both articles address an airline pilot’s refusal to undergo a full-body scan. They are different due to the fact that one of the articles comes from the perspective of the airline pilot while the other is from an NBC media reporter. The NBC article contains a video with Michael Roberts’ interview and Tom Costello’s view of the situation while the other is more of a blog post from the airline pilot’s descriptive take of events.
ReplyDeleteb) I believe the pilot’s actions were out of line. Of course, if I was asked if civil rights must be acknowledged, I would say yes. Michael Roberts’ believed that being taken into a full-body scan would resort to his body being frisked and examined nude by the naked eye. But in the NBC video, Tom Costello states “...privacy settings are in place so TSA officers can’t see the specifics of someone’s genitalia.” Even Roberts says that the new AIT systems that have been “deployed across the nation” enable something called virtual strip searching, which does not mean you have to take all your clothes off. All the TSA officers are trying to do is to ensure passengers that they are taking the necessary precautions for their safety and protection and so that they do not have to worry about some bomb being set off in someone’s pants and blowing up the plane 3,000 ft. above sea level. Yes, back then you could walk through a set of metal detectors and be free to go on your way. Nowadays you really can’t trust anybody. In September 11, more than 3,000 people were killed due to plane bombers, and according to Tom Costello on NBC, “just last December, an underwear bomber tried to light a plane up on fire.” It may appear that the TSA are being very cynical about the whole ordeal, but I believe they have a reason to. Personally, I want a sense of security knowing that everyone I’m on board with on a plane has been checked and scanned for possible threats and weapons.
Step a)These two articles are very similar in the sense that they are both making strong references to the changes in American security and violations of human privacy. One article is actually an airplane pilot's recollection of a recent event that made him doubt his privacy at work. The first article though, is more of a reporting of the incident from the media's point of view.
ReplyDeleteStep b) I believe that the pilot's actions were justified. Mr. Robert felt that his rights were being encroached upon, & rightfully so. He chose to disagree with the safety policy & went about the situation in a polite manner although the reader can tell he was clearly aggravated. Evidence of this can be found in the second article “We continued briefly in the conversation until I recognized that we were essentially repeating the same discussion I’d already had with the other officers ...”, this quote represents the frustration that Mr. Roberts had, he had already gone through the process once before and it yielded no result or conclusion the situation he was in. “It’s probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged”, this quote taken from article two clearly shows how Mr. Roberts feels about the situation. This entire situation does not only apply to the pilot but also to frequent flyers & the occasional airplane passenger. New safety regulations are taking place to secure the safety of our nation, but does that mean that our privacy should be violated? As Mr. Roberts referred to this as “tyrannical madness”. Also that “The very bedrock[foundation] of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don’t let it be taken from us without a fight.”, he truly seems to be against this issue & only wishes to restore the rights of passengers & pilots. For that reason I applaud him for taking a stand on that which he believes is just.
step A) The two douments are similar because they are both talking about there experiences with the air line security. They are some what different because artical two goes more into dept on what had happen to him and how he felt it was not right. The !st artical is being that the media was already ready involved.
ReplyDeleteStep B) To be honest in my opinion i beleve Micheal was being very uncompliant. Him working in the airport should know the big deal of security. Micheal says that the govements new scanner was like a "virtual strip search", he makes the goverment seem like they are herrasing everybody.Mr. Roberts states: “I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly.” I think he needs to get over himself he needs to repect that the goverment is just trying to do its job just like he is trying to do his.
Part A: These articles are the same because they are talking about the same incident. They are different because one is told by a reporter and the other is told by Michael Roberts himself. The reporters sources came from other people he was not there himself and Michael Roberts source was primary because he was there and it was his situation. The intended purpose for the article "In his Words" was for Roberts to tell his side of the story and to get his point across.
ReplyDeletePart B: I think Michael Roberts actions were justified because he believed it was an "Ineringement of my civil rights and liberty" and how Roberts states "I've been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broke any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent called my boss in Houston." Me personally would not have gone through the scanning thing because its an invasion of privacy. If he went through the metal detector and it did not go off then they should have just let him be and not tried to do all that extra stuff.
Step A: Both articles are the same because both of the pilots in both articles are refusing to to go threw the new scanner. They are different because in one article is from the person's point of view and the other story is being told by the media. One of the stories it's lacking a lot of details while in the next story they go really into detail.
ReplyDeleteStep B: In my personal opinion I think that the pilot's actions were right in a way but also wrong. I respect both pilot's reasoning on why they did not want to go threw the new scanner because it is sort of violating. Understandably the agents are just trying to do their job and not let another incident happen like the one that occurred on 9-11.
A)The two articles are the same, they both talk about how the airports are getting to pesonal.However, these reports are also different. They each made me feel a different way. For example, in the first article, I kept asking myself, "What does he have to hide? Is he dangerous? What is making him so scared?" But in the second article, I agreed with everything the speaker said and almost got as aggravated as he did when he was stopped in the airport.
ReplyDeleteB)I believe that the new airport regulations are getting too personal. The new device that was stated in the second article, the one that can see through clothes, the AIT system, can make a person feel self-conscience and feel like the government is demeaning them. It is "virtual stripping" and is a violation of our rights. And even though this issue of being careful is understandable, the fact of it is, there are other ways to catch a person who is on the verge of doing something evil. Using these "controversial devices" are just going to create problems within airports and create people to riot.
Step A: The articles are alike because they both are a recollection of the events that took place at the airport. They are different in the aspect that the author of the first arcticle, "What Was Reported", came from a official standpoint only stating what happened. On the other hand the article, "In His Own Words", came from the standpoint of the angered pilot that recalled the scene in his own eyes, so of course it has an angered tone.
ReplyDeleteStep B: Michael Roberts actions are justified. The airports new policy is a complete invasion of privacy. Mr. Roberts states, "I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body". That's ridiculous he had been working their for five years and they stop him, it's not like he was someone suspicious he was just trying to do his job. When Michael states, "I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty", and the agent replies, "That’s irrelevant." Irrelevant? It was as if he did not even have civil rights. "The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don’t let it be taken from us without a fight." this quote sums up one thing if we do not do something more and more of our basic rights will be taken away.
To Chanel: I agree with your standpoint on the subject. He had every right to be mad who would want to go through something know as " virtual strip searching". When Mr. Roberts states that he "has a problem with the infringement of his civil rights" and the agent says, "thats irrelevant." What do you think about that?
ReplyDeleteTo Vjunnia: I Completely agree with you on part a. When you used "Infringement of civil rights..." it helped better get your point across. When Mr. Roberts stated, "I've been going through security screening... for five years" it shows how angry he was. Even when the agent stated everything was "irrevelant" showed how everything was mishandled. But what if Michael Roberts reall did have something to hide?
(Posting for Aimy Tran)
ReplyDeletea) They are the same because they were both about an airline pilot who refuses a full body scan. They are different because the first article is what was reported, and the second article is the pilot’s own words of what happened. He wrote what had happened to get people to understand his side of the story.
b) I think the pilot’s actions were justified. He did not want to be “harassed or molested without cause.”
“Do you want them to board your plane?” he asked.
“No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society.”
“Yeah, I know,” he said. And then, to my amazement, he continued, “But somebody’s already taken those away.”
“Maybe they have,” I conceded, watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards.
I also agree with the pilot that they are violating our civil rights. They have an Advanced Imaging Technology which enables screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). I would consider that a violation of my civil rights because they are using a “virtual strip searching” technology to see if we have anything dangerous hidden underneath. To me, that sounds very disturbing and uncomfortable.
“Understood. I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly.” He was mad that the government is going this far to check our bodies to see if we are carrying weapons. There are other ways to check us without violating our rights. If it was me, I would have not wanted to go through the full body scan either.
CHANEL) I like how you focused on the tone of both articles. I didn't rake into consideration when contrasting them that tone would make a difference. Good job(: and although I completely agree with you when you give the cited examples, your rationale didn't really convince me to the extreme.
ReplyDeleteDAMIAN) I understand where you're coming from when you talk about the safety of others is more important than what just one man wants. But don't you think that maybe if they hadn't harrassed him as they did, he would've been more capable of being talked into the "virtual strip search"?
To Mauricio G: I would have to tell you I disagree with you. The AIT taken is for people's security, it is not for a porn show. Why would the goverment want to harass their people? Yes, he has been working there for 5 years and that's why he should also know all the safety regulations for the company. In other words he had to know he was one of the many people who need to take the screening. You also stated, "it's not like he was someone suspicious he was just trying to do his job." No one really knows when a crime will be commited. In most recent times we hear of a husband killing his family, for the small fact that he could no longer support them; in this economic crisis. His rights were hurt? Shouldn't everyone else also have the right to saftey?
ReplyDeleteTo Cherrie: I agree with you a hundred percent. Mr. Roberts' actions were way out of line. Peoples' saftey should always come first. The AIT machines are only used for a person's safety and nothing else. He also sounds selfish when he refuse to take the AIT screening. Yes, he does have civil rights, but shouldn't other people also have the right to safety?
To Bernada R.:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on that the pilot was not out of line. First of all he just wanted his privacy like you said and by going into the machine he does not get this. Second of all I do not think is right that he has trough a new process just to get to his work and fly the plane. Fianlly, he been going through the same inspection of over five years now all of sudden the pilote is going to be the one that is going to be the enemy to the people. To conclued, what would have happen if the pilote went through the machine?
To Diana:
Your argument is good and i totally agree with you. Also, by him voicing his opinio on the situtation got him detaned. That is violating his right to freedom of speech. Next, he was asked the same question over and over again so I would understand the why he asked so rude. All in all he action where justified. Moreover, what would have happened if the pilote just acted like that every day and just wanted to show off to others.
@ stephanie: Nice reference to the Civil War, but I would have to disagree with you. Just because a pilot is well respected does not make him subject to not be searched. Since our country has been terrorized by terrorists, we cannot trust everyone. 'Strip searches' have become very common lately and they have also become a regulation in our nation's airports. Maybe the pilot felt 'violated' by being 'strip searched', but why would he also go against a pat down search? Wouldn't you have had suspicions also?
ReplyDelete@ Lizbeth Torres: Lizbeth, I would have to disagree with you in this case. His 'civil rights' were not being violated. Civil rights are pretty much the civilians' right to be safe. If a few pilots and passengers were exempt from being searched, then the civil rights of the other passengers would be violated since they are not ensured safety. You were right in that people do hide weapons under their clothes. These weapons can only be found by x-ray searches or patdowns. So, if safety is a priority and people refuse to be searched, then oh well they'll be refused entrance. Think of this, did he have a reason to refuse or did he just want to make a big deal for five minutees of fame?
@ Guadalupe: Lupe, give me high five! You did a great page and we are both on the same page. It is true that things like September 11 can occur occur again without proper security. i cannot say much since in my point of view your comment was flawless.
To Janna: I agree with your view point because if he had just gone through the machine then he wouldn't have had any hasle with the officers (example). The Patriot Act can take away your rights if they think your a terrorist and put you in jail for no reason other than that- it would be legal (example). That's why you have to be careful and comply to what they say. When the officer was talking about our rights being taken away already he could have been refering to the Patriot Act because they thought there could have been a possibility that he was a terrorist(example). Do you think we should fight for our rights now or wait until it's a bigger issue?
ReplyDeleteTo Aimy: Your statements are true; I believe those machines do violate our rights because if citizens can't strip you then why do officers get that right (example). They are taking away our right to get sweets in school when we are responsible for what we eat (example). Our government has a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, so them taking away our rights would be going against our founding fathers and the basic idea our country was founded on- freedom (example). If we didn't have all these rules and procedures would we still be free- and safe?
@Brandon G.: I agree with your statement about the pilots actions. "Safety first" is always important. It was their job check for anything suspicious and they did what they thought was right. After all, its not like it had anything to do with race, gender, etc. But did the workers have to take it that seriously?
ReplyDelete@Guadalupe: I also agree with your opinion on what the pilot did. It was their job to do what they did. Safety at airports have been very important since 9/11. I do not blame the workers for what they did. But did the workers have to not tell him what he did wrong?
To Maria B: "However, they are completely because the msn article is a secondary source ,while the second article is a primary source because it was written by an eyewitness." This makes so much sense I cant believe I didn't think of writing something like this. Your right, but it is more of a primary source if they got the information by the guy accused of trying to "bomb the plain", The man that they interviewed, so it from the outside, how would he know what his real intentions where?
ReplyDelete"An article, such as the second one, has a greater probability of being correct, since nothing has a reason to be hidden." Your right Micheal shouldn't have anything to hide, because he would have no reason to try to corrupt the situation more than it has already been corrupted. "The pilot justifies that he felt "molested" and that further scans shall be stopped. Since September 11th our country cannot be "too safe"." You make sense but, this is a man that has been working at the same place for years, why would he have any reason to blow the plane up at random? I believe he was just tired of always being hassled everyday. What if you were the pilot that has been working there for year? Would you still keep calm if had always have to go though this process each and everyday you go to work?
To Lissete: "These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months,... extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching)" I agree with you agreeing that this was violating his rights. He, because he has been working there for a while, how would he feel comfortable being stripped down and touched.
"the converstation he had with the officer was not necessary due to the fact he just went through it with other officer and he has all the right to be pissed off.:\" I agree, because he is probably already frantic about what happened, and having a guy asking him all his information like he is a suspect for a murder, i think first of all, made him feel uncomfortable, confused, and of course mad.Specially, cause the man wasn't even a part of what happened, he wasn't there to see what happened. "All in all he action he took on handling the situation were the right steps because it violate people rights." I agree, he didn't disrespect anyone, he just didn't want to questions, he has been working there for years, there is no real reason he would want to terrorize the plane. Because you think he took the right steps to handling the situation, what do you think would be the wrong way to handle it?
@Amy
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying int the first step. You used good points to your opinion. Yes both of the articles have diffrent point of views. Good way to use civil rights inyour statement. No one should violate your civil rights.
@Diana
Yes in the two articles both of the piolts refused to be scanned. The two point of views are diffrently from each other. Good point, the way you used the government officials. Yes, the government is slowly taking our rights away.
@ Julie
ReplyDeleteI agree with your standpoint. The first one makes you think that the pilot is the “enemy”, and only states the bad things that happened. While the pilot’s account explains the story with more details and you begin to relate with him. He was just trying to stand up for his right to privacy. Instead of taking things out of proportion, they should have thought about how people feel about being “virtually stripped”. What other methods are there to catch someone doing something evil?
@Eric Becerra
ReplyDeleteYou are right about standing up for what you believe in. Michael thought his civil liberties were being taken away, so he did what he thought was the correct thing to do. The interrogator does not treat him like a human being, but of just a threat.
To Alonzo: I agree that both articles are alike in almost everything. And I also agree with your standpoint. The man was protecting himself and the guards were just performing their jobs. NO one wants an incident like the one from 9/11. What would you do if you had to go through the scanner?
ReplyDeleteTo Cherrie: Your comment is one that I completely agree on. You stated everything much better than mine comment. It was just like how I wanted explain it, but you wrapped it up better. The quote you incorporated was a question that made me think. What would you do?
@Chanel: I agree with your standpoint. The scanner shows an explicit image of the body and I defintely would be uncomfortable. It would be a violation of privacy, but not because he has something to hide. Federal secerities detaining the pilot when he was leaving the airport was not a reasonable thing to do on their part. However, if the pilot was forcing to enter the airport, it would make more sense to feel threatened or suspicious. If the scanner images were less graphic, would you agree to go for a scanning?
ReplyDelete@Maria B.: Your standpoint is reasonable and I would agree. Since September 11, airport security has been more strict. Securty would have to have more advance technology to be able to ensure safety for themselves and the passengers. It is better to be safe then sorry. There are thousands of passengers who would have to pass through the scanners everyday and it would just have to take some time to get used to it. Do you think that there should be an improved scanner that isn't so graphic while it can also detect possible threats?
Abby i completely agree with you. The security has all the right to search us, i mean they only do it do avoid any sort of accident. How could you convince someone, like Mr. Roberts, that the X ray is good this for this country?
ReplyDeleteBrenda, I disagree with you. If he really likes his job, than he would do whatever to keep it. And if he does have anything to hide, their should be no problem in going through security. I can admit that you did defended your topic throughout the whole paragraph, nice work. But wouldn't you think that this world, or at least the airports, would be a safer place if everyone went through these searches?
To Chanel: I completely agree with you. I like the way how we both have some similarities in our statements. You did an amazing job on analyzing the tones both articles had; it gave me a better reason for why to justify with the pilot's actions. You are right there are better ways to search people without them feeling harassed or uncomfortable. What effective ways would you suggest for replacing this device?
ReplyDeleteTo Lena: Way to go Lena, I agreed with you. I like the way how you reffered to the fact that he was not used to this new routine; a lot of people forget how it is to go through a sudden change and undergo all those emotions at once . If he was someone that posed as a threat why would he went through the full-body scaneer without hesatating. I like the way how you referred to the articles piont of views, the pilot did seem more accusing while the media just pass it off rebellion against the man. If you were in Robert's position and never heard of these new devices would you have protested like he did? Or went with the flow?
To J.C: I completely agree with your standpoint on this subject. It was a great point when you said that the airport agents see thousands of people everyday and they really don't care about how you look. The airport agents are just trying to do their jobs and keep the airport safe its a standard procedure that they must follow. If airport agents start letting people threw without going through threw these screenings do you think terrorist levels would increase ?
ReplyDeleteTo Mauricio G ( aka illegal ) : I do not agree with your views on this subject. Even though it seems like an invasion of privacy, it is a job that the airport agents have to do. It does not matter if he has been working there for five years or forty years he should still have to go threw the screening. You never know, what if he was a terrorist and was just looking for the right time to do damage. Did you ever think about that ?
(Sorry this is late! D:)
ReplyDeleteJanna: I agreed with everything you stated. If I was on a plane, I would want the pilot to go through security without hesitation or even worse, defiance. The assurance of our safety, in my opinion, is most important in a situation like this.
Julie: You are an opinionated person, but would you have felt safe if your pilot refused to undergo an airport security process? There shouldn't be anything to hide even if airport regulations are getting a little too personal. It is for the safety of the passengers.
(Posting for Aimy Tran) - On Time
ReplyDeleteAmy A: Your argument was strong and I agree with it. The full body scan does violate our civil rights. I would be very uncomfortable, and he must have felt the same way. He is a pilot, so ever since they have set up the new Advanced Imaging Technology, that would mean he would have to get checked once a week. He believes the government went too far with the AIT, and there can be better technologies to check us without violating our civil rights. Do you think this problem has gone out of hand, and should they get rid of the AIT?
Jovani: Your argument was not strong enough and you needed more details to support you argument. I also agree with the pilot’s actions. I also agree that rules are rules and we have them for a reason. It would be chaos without rules, and that was why there was chaos when he broke the rules. Even so, don’t you think rules should be bended sometimes?
A)The two articles are the sane by both discussing the same topic about the pilot named Michael Roberts. These are diffrent because in one they make a overview of this case, which is written in third person. In the second article Roberts dicusses his experience in first person.
ReplyDeleteB)In my opinion there are two conflicting sides versues each other. First it was not good, for this pilot to not obey the rules, due to the new enforcments to protect the people around the area. Therehas been many opposites isdes in this case. For example many people believe that this is good to protect the people, but some think this is going to far. Secondly it was good for this Tennessee pilot to reject himself from doing this because it was just to far for him, when he has been doing this fir several years. This quote demonstrates how Roberts felt with this,"Harrassed or molested without cause" shows how Michael Roberts felt against this new enforcment.Michael Robert msut feel that he is not been trusted on his plane for him to go through these scanner which he thinks are uneccessary for himself to go through it.
To Mauricio G: I completly agree with your thoughts on this case. I agree that this was invading his privacy. Also that the airport did not trust him after working there for five years to make him go through this. If you were Michael Robert would you react the same way?
ReplyDeleteTo Chanel: I agree with your comments towards this incident. Step A is basically the same because it talks about the same topic that's one of your commnets that I do not agree with you.However I do agree with your comments towards how this was invading his privacy.Do you believe that they should give Robert another chance to return to his job?
Great Job..
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete