TSA Logic
31 December 2007 by Bob
An excellent read from the New York Times…
No matter that a deadly sharp can be fashioned from virtually anything found on a plane, be it a broken wine bottle or a snapped-off length of plastic, we are content wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and untold hours of labor in a delusional attempt to thwart an attack that has already happened, asked to queue for absurd lengths of time, subject to embarrassing pat-downs and loss of our belongings. The folly is much the same with respect to the liquids and gels restrictions, introduced two summers ago following the breakup of a London-based cabal that was planning to blow up jetliners using liquid explosives. Allegations surrounding the conspiracy were revealed to substantially embellished. In an August, 2006 article in the New York Times, British officials admitted that public statements made following the arrests were overcooked, inaccurate and “unfortunate.” The plot’s leaders were still in the process of recruiting and radicalizing would-be bombers. They lacked passports, airline tickets and, most critical of all, they had been unsuccessful in actually producing liquid explosives. Investigators later described the widely parroted report that up to ten U.S airliners had been targeted as “speculative” and “exaggerated.” [...] The three-ounce container rule is silly enough — after all, what’s to stop somebody from carrying several small bottles each full of the same substance — but consider for a moment the hypocrisy of T.S.A.’s confiscation policy. At every concourse checkpoint you’ll see a bin or barrel brimming with contraband containers taken from passengers for having exceeded the volume limit. Now, the assumption has to be that the materials in those containers are potentially hazardous. If not, why were they seized in the first place? But if so, why are they dumped unceremoniously into the trash? They are not quarantined or handed over to the bomb squad; they are simply thrown away. The agency seems to be saying that it knows these things are harmless. But it’s going to steal them anyway, and either you accept it or you don’t fly.
31 December 2007, on 12:34 pm
Yeah Bob…
Amazing…amazingly stupid, that is!
Is this yet another example of what widespread childhood religious brainwashing does to effectively shut down the rational thinking ability of the masses?
Another example of George Orwell’s ‘1984′ visionary tale…only 24 years late?
And, are we in for another mindbogglingly stupid repeat of the 2000 and 2004 election of asshat crooks and liars?
It’s interesting, indeed, to read the follow-up comments to the article.
Oh well…
Happy New Year, GifSters!
I don’t know about you guys; but I make no New Year’s resolutions…except, maybe, to continue being the same old, occasionally cantankerous, skeptical atheist. [And loving it?]
“AARGH!”
31 December 2007, on 5:43 pm
I, for one, suspect the health and beauty aids industry of conspiring with the TSA to rob us of our liquid or gelatinous toiletries, necessitating another trip to the Walgreens. Either that or it’s that bald, cadaverous, D.H.S. chief, Michael Chertoff’s revenge on the hirsute that have mocked him his whole life.
31 December 2007, on 6:55 pm
“The folly is much the same with respect to the liquids and gels restrictions”
Things could get even worse if the T.S.A. ever finds out there is such a thing as solid explosives.
31 December 2007, on 7:55 pm
I used to fly fairly often on business trips back in the 60’s and 70’s. My use decreased considerably when jets took over entirely in the late 70’s and 80’s, and the whole routine began to resemble a cattle drive. Now that I’m retired I have the problem solved. I will not get on a commercial airliner. At any time. For any reason. Condolences to those of you who can’t avoid it.
31 December 2007, on 10:07 pm
The best sight I saw was a man who put his over 3 oz size toothpaste and other product in his pocket, went through security then simply put it back in his luggage.
Luckily the “terrorists” haven’t figured out this complicated scheme yet…
1 January 2008, on 12:50 am
From my family and friends that travel internationally - this type of airport security is only popular in countries that still feel a need to pretend there is a terrorist threat.
1 January 2008, on 2:59 pm
Anyone else hear about the government asking ordinary travelers to see if they could take a “fake” bomb through security?
1 January 2008, on 4:35 pm
I’m not usually one for conspiracies, but I think the government is trying to acclimate the citizens to less and less freedom, until one day the suggestion is made to congress to repeal the right to vote of women and blacks.
Once that passes, they’ll target the non-christians next. And it won’t simply work to just say that you’re a christian, because they’ll use circular logic. If you don’t vote for the christian candidate, they’ll know you lied about being a christian, and then your right to vote will be taken away. This, of course, assumes that there will be any non-christian candidates running for president, which probably won’t happen.
1 January 2008, on 5:31 pm
@Marcy,
I think you’re spot-on there with your claim of The Authorities trying to get people used to diminished liberties.
I see something very similar happening in the UK, with talk of a childhood obesity epidemic leading to inspections on schoolkids’ packed lunches “to make sure children are eating healthily”. Those kids will gradually become used to being told what they can and cannot eat. And once you can tell people what to eat, it’s a very short step to telling them what to think. (For those too old to be affected by new “guidelines” in schools, taxes will undoubtedly be levied; initially on only the most “unhealthy” foods, eventually on all foods — e.g. if you can make chips out of potatoes, then we’d better tax potatoes.)
I know, we should not ascribe to malice that which would be better explained by incompetence. But quite frankly, there are certain acts that are properly assumed deliberate: if we are to accept that they are born of incompetence alone, then the sheer magnitude of incompetence necessary to act in such a manner is unrealistic. In other words, they’re obviously doing it on purpose: anybody that stupid would have difficulty remembering to breathe.
1 January 2008, on 5:51 pm
This is why I don’t fly. Not ever. If something comes up and I have to go overseas, I will drive there, laws of physics be damned. Failing that, I’ll take a boat or something, but I’m not getting on a plane.
Of course, they won’t let you take this that and the other thing, but I could take a 3 oz bottle of water, a 2oz bottle of hot sauce and some ‘hot hands’ on with me and turn them into an improvised tear gas grenade.
This is nothing more than another way for the government to exert idiotic levels of control over the lives of the citizenry.
1 January 2008, on 11:07 pm
I guess I could see this being a gradual removal of freedoms–a kind of lubricating and easing-in before the real sodomizing takes place, but I often doubt our government and it’s agencies ability to carry off such an elaborate and organized action. And who is behind it?
No, at the risk of sounding naive, I tend to subscribe to Occam and his razor. In this case, the TSA mouth-breathers either truly believe they are doing something to effectively curtail terrorist activity, or, more likely, it is “bread and circuses;” they are doing this to make US, the citizenry, feel as if they are taking action to prevent terrorist attacks.
Either way, as this post effectively explains, these actions are breath taking in their stupidity and futility. And whether or not they are meant to be a precursor to losing our rights is rather irrelevant, since we are, indeed, losing our rights as a result of these actions.
2 January 2008, on 2:41 am
For anyone who hasn’t seen…or isn’t aware of…the September 30th conversation between Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and Hitchens…the, albeit analogous…”Four Horsemen” of atheists; here are the links to the two hours of a truly rare, “Must See”, casual get together.
I highly recommend “sitting in”…as the silent observer (or fly on the wall?)…on a truly marvelous conversation.
An excellent way, I think, to ‘dive into’ this New Year?
[Aside from having some really steamy sex, of course!]
The Four Horsemen - Hour 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890
The Four Horsemen Hour 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-225595257312538919
[There are also some other interesting video links on the related Google pages.]
2 January 2008, on 3:10 am
“Pardon me Bob…
is this the Transylvania station?…”
OK…as long as I’m linking shtick…
Related to the ever popular evolution argument; here’s an interesting news article from ScienceDaily (Jan. 1, 2008), titled:
“Fresh Fossil Evidence Of Eye Forerunner Uncovered”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.htm
“Dr Gavin Young from the Department of Earth and Marine Sciences at ANU has analyzed fossilised remains of 400-million-year-old Devonian placoderms – jawed ancestors of modern
fish whose bodies were protected by thick bony armour.”
clip
“What this research shows is that 400 million years ago there was already a complex eye, and one that was an intermediate form between jawless and jawed vertebrates,” Dr Young says. “This means that we’re able to add one more piece to the puzzle of how the human eye came
to be.”
Hmmm…do I somehow hear the moaning, clawing, and screaming of the Creationists, or what?
2 January 2008, on 7:37 am
The discovery of a transitional form between jawed and jawless vertebrates will ultimately be used as an argument against evolutuion. The creationists will now be demanding evidence of intermediates between jawed and transitional and between transitional and jawless, otherwise evolution is obviously false!
2 January 2008, on 9:52 am
Yes, AJS and Chuck A., for every transitional species found, another two gaps open up for the onslaught of teh Stoopid. What’s that, “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back” or “The Double Regressive’s Law of Infinite Regress”? Tune in next week…
2 January 2008, on 1:13 pm
AJS & Raindogzilla…
You mean they’ll be yelling something like:
“oooOOH NO YA DON’T!…Gob did it!
He was just practicing…you know…with his new fangled ‘Gilbert Chemistry/Biology Set’…”
[I just thought I'd throw that one in for anyone old enough to remember things like 'American Flyer model trains' (I still have mine)...'Gilbert Erection'...I mean...Erector Sets, etc.]
2 January 2008, on 4:14 pm
Howdy, Gifsters, and a very Happy New Year to all!
Having completed a flight yesterday, I must admit things went smoothly for me; I stuck to a single, liquid-free handbag as a carry-on and checked in my one suitcase with its “Danger, Will Robinson!” contents (a 6-ounce bottle of *gasp!* glass filled with “oh, no!” perfume, a 5-ounce tub of *shudder* skin cream, and a 6-ounce bottle of “horrors!” mosquito repellent, among other explosive ingredients). My documents passed muster, so I guess word has yet to get out to the US authorities that I’m a blogging, trouble-making godless heathen.
I suppose if they had allowed me to bring those items into the cabin with me, I could have sprayed mosquito repellent into people’s eyes before menacing them with a shiv cobbled from the broken glass perfume bottle - but there you go. Another Elizabeth-Arden-Red-Door (TM)-scented crisis averted by the intrepid TSA!/snark
2 January 2008, on 6:45 pm
I was able to trek two gallons of home-made mezcal from Taxco, Mexico…I told the Mexican authorities at the airport that the mezcal was “holy water” blessed by the bishop and that “my nephew in Texas was going to be baptized in the Catholic faith.” Ahhh, blessed mezcal…better than gin, brandy or bourbon…but not Glenmorangie…
2 January 2008, on 9:12 pm
Hey Eve, welcome back, and Happy New Year to you, too!
4 January 2008, on 10:43 pm
Thanks, Star! It’s good to be back - and what an interesting year we’re in for…