"I Think You're Clueless" Sen. Rand Paul About TSA
He was talking about their invasive search of a 6-year-old girl.
And, as I blogged a few days ago, they took away the plastic hammer that a mentally disabled man had had for his emotional comfort for 29 years.
Meanwhile, I just got a comment on my entry about TSA groper Magee Thedala (or Thedala Magee) sticking her hand sideways INTO my vagina, between my labia, four times. It was left by a person calling themself "Blank tso" (from a Long Beach, CA, Verizon Mobile I.P. address):
Okay goddess lady I work for tsa at the airport u went thru an to me it sounds like your just one of tjose typical people who when something was to happen you would point a finger at tsa an you must feel that why should I go thru all this an im no terroist by the way terriost can be any body an you talking about a pat down when the police pat down is more.intruding an also we ask you is that.okay we go thru.sensitive areas with back of hand to me your just a typical blogger with.nuthing else to do. An sorry for all these periods im on my phone
My response:
your just a typical blogger with.nuthing else to do.Actually, I'm not. I go to presentations at Rand Corp. on terrorism and talk to, interview and read security experts.
Here's one of the experts I read regularly (Bruce Schneier), quoted in The Economist:
"Counter terrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better," Schneier tells Goldberg. "Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."You earn a living violating Americans' rights, and that's despicable.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -- quote on the title page of a book by Richard Jackson, published by Ben Franklin (and usually attributed to Franklin)
The Rand presentation was by Brian Jenkins. No slouch, Brian.
Here's Brian on Why Terrorists Attack Airports. And what better place for terrorists to pick off a bunch of sheeple than while they're standing in their socks waiting to be felt up by employees who'd otherwise be working at McDonald's? (Duh.)
We're safer by looking for terrorists, not tweezers.
There really is no guaranteed safety, but I'd rather live in a free society than a "safe" one. I'll sign something to take the plane where you don't get groped and passengers have to take down the guy with the bomb between his cheeks (aka a "wedgie bomb")...which, by the way, would not be discovered by our current search procedures. And hilariously, from that link just above (and I have to say, I'm not sure about the site):
How to explode your rectum without harming anyone nearbyThe ABC News story mentioned above goes on to state that this terrorist's underwear was packing 80 grams of an explosive powder called PETN, which government tests have revealed can blow a (tiny) hole in the wall of an airplane.
This is all brilliant stuff, of course. Truly brilliant. This whole idea that underwear explosives might destroy an airplane all makes sense except for the fact that the terrorist's butt cheeks are in the way!
Had this explosive packet actually been set off, I can tell you exactly what would have happened: There would have been a really loud pop, immediately followed by in-flight pieces of exploding butt cheeks.
I'm not trying to be funny here. This is a true description of the way bombs work. They explode outward, destroying whatever is closest to them first. And this guy actually had this bomb wedged in between his butt cheeks. A sort of "wedgie bomb", if you will. A wedgie with a bang.
This is a serious discussion. There was an attempted assassination of a Middle Eastern prince that happened not long ago. It was even reported in the press. The assassin had somehow managed to shove explosives into his rectum -- I swear I'm not making this up -- and waltzed right through security with it. He then shuffled toward his target, fired off the bomb and subsequently blew his butt cheeks all over the room... without harming anyone else.
Brilliant, huh?
"an you talking about a pat down when the police pat down is more.intruding"
No, you twisted twit, an ordinary police patdown is not more intrusive. I've been frisked by the police; it's nothing like what the TSA molesters are doing.
If you're talking about an actual strip-search, that's different -- yes, the police (and Customs) do sometimes do that -- it's humiliating, it's meant to be humiliating, and there are evidently some TSA agents who'd like to do it, too.
Well, chin up -- if the sheeple get their way, Uncle Sam will be sticking his fingers up their asses soon enough. After all, A Terrorist might be hiding there!
Lisa Simeone at June 24, 2011 4:49 AM
That important point was learned and implemented by the American people on September 11, 2001 as amply demonstrated by the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93.
The TSA is a joke cobbled up by idiots and congress critters. Actually is there any difference between the former and the latter?
Jim P. at June 24, 2011 5:55 AM
"Okay goddess lady I work for tsa at the airport u went thru an to me it sounds like your just one of tjose typical people who when something was to happen you would point a finger at tsa an you must feel that why should I go thru all this an im no terroist by the way terriost can be any body an you talking about a pat down when the police pat down is more.intruding an also we ask you is that.okay we go thru.sensitive areas with back of hand to me your just a typical blogger with.nuthing else to do. An sorry for all these periods im on my phone"
I love it. Let's not only show you have no clue what the people you're doing this to are enduring, but also prove you're illiterate as well! Makes me feel so much safer to know morons are in charge of my flight security!
Jim Armstrong at June 24, 2011 6:20 AM
Are the TSA agents subjected to that search?
If not, they should be. What if they're an infilitrator, or sympathizer? that's too sensitive a position, they must be probed in the same manner they want to probe us.
Every time they come on shift.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 24, 2011 7:48 AM
That TSA drone is a piece of work. Police need probable cause, and I've never heard of a frisk as invasive as the assault women are getting at the airport nowadays.
What they ought to do is knock all this nonsense off and issue handguns to ten random passengers per flight. If we are to put our faith in statistical rather than qualitative measures, then let's go.
Haakon Dahl at June 24, 2011 8:48 AM
Translation: "I have power that I would never have without this pathetic excuse for a security agency, and besides, terrorists are everywhere, so I get to cop a feel."
That message, combined with the middle-school writing, should alert everyone to what we're really dealing with here: frighteningly stupid troglodytes with authority.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 24, 2011 9:44 AM
And do not forget that I have, right here on this blog, outlined several effective ways to paralyze America without getting on an airplane.
You are not safer because TSA is at the airport.
Not in the least. Not at all. The items taken from you and others have flown on planes for eighty years without causing significant problems.
When the TSA does not find the enemy, it is because of one of only two things:
1) Another agent has removed the threat
2) There is no enemy present.
Bleat, bleat, bleat. See how valuable your freedom of speech is, when you can be handled at will?
Radwaste at June 24, 2011 10:27 AM
The Binghamton TSA guy is busy looking for terrorists at the airport -- on the TV, while watching NASCAR:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/05/do_you_think_th_1.html
Amy Alkon at June 24, 2011 10:36 AM
Oh, waa-waa-waa. Boo-hoo.
I just can't get a boner for this issue.
BOTU at June 24, 2011 10:37 AM
That's 'cause you BOTU, are a sheeple!
Flynne at June 24, 2011 10:40 AM
BOTU,
More and more things like this continue to happen precisely because people like you don't care. When will you care? When every right you currently take for granted is finally gone?
Sabrina at June 24, 2011 11:05 AM
I just can't get a boner for this issue.
Wait till you get your testicular cancer exam courtesy of TSA. Wait...is that part of Obamacare?
I R A Darth Aggie at June 24, 2011 11:12 AM
I think it is an outrage that people are being arrested for video-ing police or public meetings. Or paying taxes for swollen federal bureaucracies.
On occasion, I actually send e-mails to public officials to register my views, and I vote, and give minor sums of money to political causes.
I walk through the scanners. BFD.
I am sick of the scanners. At least LAX is 10 times better than it used to be.
BOTU at June 24, 2011 2:48 PM
Do remember that the iPod will take movies. You don't need a lot of equipment now to effectively protest the control of information - and once it's on the Internet, it's there to stay.
Radwaste at June 24, 2011 6:04 PM
My favorite proposal is to have two forms of flying; flights where the passengers went through strict TSA screening and flights where passengers went through the same security as fifteen years ago. Tickets for the latter type flights would have warning labels including photos of planes exploding and would have big signs warning us that we are fools.
Wanna bet the strictly screened flights will be empty?
Joe at June 24, 2011 7:36 PM
Oh, waa-waa-waa. Boo-hoo.
I just can't get a boner for this issue.
Posted by: BOTU
Did your girlfriend pull her arm out of your ass? I tell ya man you got to be careful not to play around so often your dick becomes totally desenitised to more vanilla arousal techniques
lujlp at June 24, 2011 8:01 PM
Now the TSA is abusing 95-year old women with leukemia:
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/mother-41324-search-adult.html
How far is too far before we say enough?
Lobster at June 25, 2011 10:52 PM
Consider, if you will, a contrarian view. I have long suspected that those who recruit and launch these dumb-ass suicide bombers are on to something that most of us (except me!) don't get. Consider: (1) the small amount of explosives in this guy's butt and the minimal chance of doing any real damage (2) the ingenious method of getting it aboard the airplane (3) the fact that our are enemies are neither stupid nor crazy. I conclude that the butt-bomber's real mission (unbeknownst to him) was to get caught with an explosive that got past the TSA. And indeed this is what happened. What happened next? The TSA and lots of others freaked out resulting in even more useless and disruptive security theater. If I were our enemies, I would be giving out medals to those who planned the operation. And I would be thinking about how to do it again. Enough successes like this and our transportation system will be effectively shut down -- by us. This is called "asymetric warefare"; get used to it.
Mike at June 26, 2011 5:38 PM
The police pat-downs, aka Terry Frisks, are not as invasive as the TSA pat-downs. They are mandated as such, by judicial precedent. A cop sticking his hand in a woman's crotch like what was done is illegal and the cop and the city will get a big fat civil rights lawsuit. A police pat-down is looking for weapons only. They can't even manipulate something like a drug pipe that is in the pocket to determine if it feels like a drug pipe. The police has to know by casual tough at the get go if the object being touched, but not manipulated, is contraband. A far cry from the junk-grabbing that is done by the TSA.
TexasDude at June 26, 2011 5:57 PM
Rush has a bit about TSA that runs on his on-line radio show during commercials . Referring to the types of people TSA hires to do their cavity searches, it goes like this:
"I used to soil myself down at the bus station, but this is much, much better."
Heh.
Anna Keppa at June 26, 2011 6:02 PM
I like Neal Boortz's description of the TSA:
What happens when you give badges to people McDonald's turned down.
SDN at June 26, 2011 6:50 PM
Mike has it right with the "assymetrical warfare" notion.
I'm in JAX and will NOT fly anymore unless I have to go to SEA or LAX. I'm a POV traveler from now on. I do find it a shame that there's no program for concealed licensed carriers to get a magazine load of free frangible ammo at check-in; discretely of course. (That would also be assymetrical warfare against the terrorists.)
Gryphon at June 26, 2011 6:52 PM
Increasingly I'm wondering how much racism is involved in otherwise unemployable black people getting their jollies physically abusing white people of all ages and creeds. Paying back Da Man, you know. The e-mail quoted in this article does sound like the ghetto dialect you would hear in some parts of Long Beach, CA.
NanGee at June 26, 2011 6:54 PM
Think about it. Where else can these TSA bozos get a job. They get to steal stuff, feel people up and get paid to do it. And the really sad part is the real cops among them know who they need to stop getting on the planes. And aren't allowed to do it.
glenn at June 26, 2011 8:16 PM
Questions we need to be asking include how many children under 6 have been used to carry bombs in an attempted terrorist attack via a flight leaving the U.S. (Answer: none) As a matter of fact, including Sept. 11th, how many terrorist attacks involving airlines have originated in the U.S.? (Answer: 1 - the 9/11 attack)). How many terrorist attacks of any type used children to perpetuate the attack? (Answer: none). So why do the TSA terrorize children by separating them forcibly from their parents and molesting them?
The truth is, the TSA does nothing to keep us safe. They haven't averted any attacks or done anything other than put one more nail in the coffin of free conduct of American business.
This is so much nonsense. When marketing executives study patterns and devise ad strategies based on target markets, it's called segmentation. But we cannot use the same techniques to scrutinize passenger lists to keep Americans safe? Ridiculous. Follow Israel's security example and be done with it. Defund TsA.
4Gs at June 26, 2011 10:50 PM
umm, the major problem for me here is the apparently low IQ of the TSA "officer".
If someone is unable to formulate a syntactically and grammatically correct English sentence then I have to doubt their intelligence and, hence, their ability to function is such a position.
But, then again, I am just an old (Brit) fart.
Just sayin'
666 at June 26, 2011 11:14 PM
Political correctness continues to destroy our freedoms.
Kevitivity at June 27, 2011 1:12 AM
FWIW, in lawsuits that people have filed against the TSA trying to stop these searches, the TSA raises as a defense that their searches must be reasonable since so few people are actually objecting to them when they fly. So stand up people, TSA won't change their ways unless you force them to by objecting EVERY time you fly.
DeeG at June 27, 2011 5:07 AM
Oh, I can see this. I know a couple women with prolapsed uteruses and still menstruating. This means a tampon could protrude. Wait till some TSA screener gets a feel of that. That is going to play real bad. Come to think of it, what do they and why do they presume if they feel a bulky pad? How do they know what they are passing on? You know what the real shame is in this set of scenarios? The congress is going to wait until this very likely set of humiliations goes public before they act. If only they could see all the way to the end of their noses.
Para-dimz at June 27, 2011 6:35 AM
Tomorrow evening I'm boarding a train to take me from Baltimore to Orlando. Why am I taking a 19 hour trip by train? Because I'm sick and tired of taking my DAMNED shoes off at the airport!
Joe Miller at June 27, 2011 9:12 AM
I fly for business about 50 weeks per year, mainly through the same 2-3 airports. I see a lot of the TSA and I think it's important to draw some distinctions.
First, most of the individual TSA agents I have encountered have been friendly. I have seen hostile agents about as often as hostile passengers, which is almost never.
Second, it appears (I don't know this for a fact) that TSA agents are either discouraged or prohibited from using even the kind/level of independent thinking expected of law enforcement officers. I can only imagine the thinking is, "Better to make the news for feeling up a kid than to make the news for letting through a bomber."
Third, the standard process (i.e., even w/o unusual intrusiveness) is both confusing and demeaning. For example, we now are told to have nothing with us when we go through the scanner but to hold onto our boarding pass for examination. And if our BP is on our smartphone, what exactly is supposed to happen? (Hint: it takes longer and removes some of the advantages of having the BP on the phone in the first place.)
Furthermore, the agents tend to chant their instructions repetitively rather than actually communicate with individual passengers - even those who could clearly benefit from a little attention (large families, the obviously confused, travelers who don't speak English). The feeling of being driven through a stockyard is inescapable.
Finally, it should be clear that the TSA's mission is more at fault than its agents. The TSA is about making Americans feel safe, because they can't actually make Americans be safe. As long as the policy is to look for bad things and not bad people, the screenings can only be theater.
The TSA could hire nothing but kindergarten teachers to work the checkpoints and the whole exercise would remain the farce that it is. We wouldn't feel safer if TSA agents stopped doing invasive pat-downs, or if they generally started using their heads, we'd just feel less abused. That's a start, because travelers shouldn't be abused by their government, but it's a sideshow compared to the grim joke that is the Federal transportation security policy.
ronbo at June 27, 2011 9:37 AM
Actually is there any difference between the former and the latter?
Yes. Not ALL idiots are in Congress.
The other two branches of the government need some too.
Rob at June 27, 2011 9:42 AM
Mike (above) is right. You cannot win a defensive war. The Soviet's built a $5 million tank, we built 20 $500 tank destroying missiles. Not a shot was fired, but we won.
Fifty bucks (maybe!) worth of bad explosives, a year of suicide training, and a five hundred dollar plane ticket. Best outcome, he blows something up and America spends a billion dollars on security that doesn't work. Second best outcome, he gets caught and Americans spend another billion dollars on security that doesn't work.
And what would we spend that billion dollars on other wise? Food, medicine and infrastructure in the developing world so people in other countries don't hate us?
You want to see airport security that works? Go to Israel. Every security agent is an army veteran. Every one has extensive training. They use behavioral profiling to spot people who they want to speak to. Every security agent actually knows how to use an x-ray machine and knows what to look for. And no one even has to remove their SHOES!
Either a) we are under attack and the military needs to be brought in (or an organization associated with and staffed by ex-military) or b) we are not under attack and let's all go home.
MD at June 27, 2011 9:47 AM
Anyone who has flown out of LAX can tell you that they are at GREATER risk because of the TSA. These days, things are so poorly handled at LAX that a terrorist doesn't even need to get through security,but merely be in the security LINE, to have the ability to kill and maim hundreds of people.
Bob at June 27, 2011 10:17 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/24/i_think_youre_c.html#comment-2308403">comment from BobBob is exactly right.
Amy Alkon at June 27, 2011 10:18 AM
Agreed. TSA is, and has always been, security theater, right down to the flashy uniforms they wear.
Really, though, the ultimate dishonor goes to the '01 Congress and the Bush White House. After a bunch of Americans sacrificed themselves on Flight 93 (aimed at the Capitol), they immediately disarmed said American flyers, and have worked to keep them from ever being heroes again.
In my darker moments, I wonder whether the heroes on Flight 93 would have bothered, had they realized what the politicians they just saved were about to do to American flyers.
heteromeles at June 27, 2011 11:18 AM
And do not forget that I have, right here on this blog, outlined several effective ways to paralyze America without getting on an airplane.
Now, why in the HELL would you do that? Don't you know that one of the saving graces for this country is that terrorists are stupid?!? It took them YEARS to plan 9/11. A competent person would have done it in 6 months or less, and would have had follow-up plans that would have brought the country to a complete halt. Don't give them ideas.
WayneB at June 27, 2011 11:37 AM
The TSA are usually drawn from the worst, most stupid people available, it would seem.
This story IN NO WAY competes with your assault by the TSA, but I present it here anyway to shine a little light on the way the rules are bent to the whims of the agents on duty. Your physical rape at the hands of that agent is horrible, and is on another level altogether than the usual airport security screening confrontation.
In Utah, going through the TSA at the St. George airport, the dick there told me I could EITHER have my toothpaste OR my sunscreen, but not both. How is that choice in any way going to improve security? It's just a bullying tactic, designed to humiliate travelers in the face of the TSA as an organization. They're an occupying force of idiots and thugs.
tom at June 27, 2011 12:12 PM
Interestingly enough, airport employees (the vendors who work past the TSA checkpoints near the departure gates and those working on the tarmac) don't have to go through any screening at all. So, all a terrorist really has to do is get a job at the airport serving fries and Big Macs. *sigh*
I recently flew to Scotland and ended up going through security 4 times in one day. I got patted down 3 times and had my purse searched at the gate, as well ... all in the same airport. The airline employees were as frustrated as their passengers.
Finnen at June 27, 2011 12:32 PM
Finnen, I have a friend who works for an airport (doing janitorial work) and they do have to go through security ... although the funny part is, because it's a small airport, it's not 24/7. So, no planes overnight = TSA shuts down.
At the beginning of his shift, he has to walk through security twice if he wants to tell something to a coworker in a different area. Wait an hour, and he could bring anything he wants through that checkpoint, because security has gone home.
I used to have some sympathy for the TSA, because I hate hearing people saying they should never search minors, people over 80, nuns, etc. and I can't help but thinking that's more or less a giant neon sign saying GIVE YOUR BOMB TO A KID AND WE'LL LET IT PAST, kinda like drug dealers using minors...
The more I read about the TSA, though, the more I'm convinced that it's bureaucracy to the point of parody, except that it's real. Nothing they do has any connection to real security.
dagny at June 27, 2011 1:05 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/24/i_think_youre_c.html#comment-2309050">comment from tomIn Utah, going through the TSA at the St. George airport, the dick there told me I could EITHER have my toothpaste OR my sunscreen, but not both. How is that choice in any way going to improve security? It's just a bullying tactic, designed to humiliate travelers in the face of the TSA as an organization. They're an occupying force of idiots and thugs.
This is disgusting. You're right -- it is not about protecting us. It is about a weak and powerless person using their position to have power over the rest of us.
Did you ask why?
Amy Alkon at June 27, 2011 2:44 PM
Well, at least terrorists haven't changed the American way of life at all.
will at June 27, 2011 3:47 PM
The TSA are the terrorists.
ScytheNoire at June 27, 2011 9:20 PM
"Don't you know that one of the saving graces for this country is that terrorists are stupid?!? It took them YEARS to plan 9/11. A competent person would have done it in 6 months or less, and would have had follow-up plans that would have brought the country to a complete halt. Don't give them ideas."
Au contraire. OBL & Al Qaeda explicitly stated that they knew they didn't need to kill anyone for the U.S. to go berserk. This has been amply reported. The point was to get the U.S. to overreact with ever-increasing, ever-more-boneheaded, ever-more-expensive security measures, thus bankrupting itself. And completely disrupting the much-vaunted "American way of life." One document called it, appropriately, "death by a thousand cuts."
They've achieved precisely their goal. What's left of the amorphous Al Q are surely sitting back laughing their asses off. They haven't had to terrorize us; we've done it to ourselves.
But nothing will change as long as the United Sheeple of America keep lying down and taking it. So many cowards, so much time.
Lisa Simeone at June 28, 2011 6:16 AM
Leave a comment