Archive for November 21st, 2010

Little late in getting this out.  Ok, days late.  So sorry.


“Driving is much more dangerous than flying, as you are far more likely to be killed in an automobile accident mile-for-mile than you are in an airplane,” said Horwitz. “The result will be that the new TSA procedures will kill more Americans on the highway.”  – Steven Horwitz, a professor of economics at St. Lawrence University

Whatever Obugger and the Libtards may think, a whole lot of people still subscribe to the idea “Give me liberty or give me death.”

For me and my family, we’ll take our chances on the road, thank you.  Bye-bye airlines.

And, sorry, but any agent who tries to strip-search my son is getting his facial features reconstructed.


The TSA had one individual (Blogger Bob) that was quoted as saying:

It is important that all screening procedures are completed.  This ensures that terrorists do not have an opportunity to probe TSA’s procedures by electing not to fly just as TSA’s screening procedures are on the verge of detecting that the passenger is a terrorist.

How stupid do the TSA people think we are?  Electing not to fly just as TSA’s screening procedures are on the verge of detecting that the passenger is a terrorist?  Did such idiocy truly get uttered?  Yes.  Yes it did.

Terrorists probing security will do dry runs.  Terrorists probing security are not going to carry the real thing – there’s no point in doing a dry run with the real explosives, or the real knife, or the real whatever.  If they are going to carry the real thing they’re going to do something with it, not probe – they are not going to start tipping the authorities off by sacrificing people and possible tactics.  They will also seek to drop as many false positives as possible.

A true “Allahu Akbar” dyed-in-the-wool pork-fearing terrorist isn’t going to bat an eye at the next step, which is cramming explosives up his/her ass or having implants installed that are loaded with “goodies” instead of silicone.

This ill-inspired exercise has become a situation illustrating the notion reductio ad absurdum.  Read the next sentence twice, or however many times it takes to catch the nuance.

You can not have non-intrusive security and catch everything.

So in practical terms, how are “we” going to catch that stuff?  Start poking fake and real tits breasts indiscriminately with needles or stilettos?  Cavity searches at random?

Yes, there’s the solution, let’s just go around puncturing every female’s hooters or cavity-probing every single passenger out of fairness, m’kay?  (We’ll do it with gloves, and we won’t enjoy it, we promise.)

Or we can do the right thing and recognize that profiling is really the only fair thing one can do.  It is not fair to equally scrutinize everybody if the preponderance of evidence says that the likelihood of a terrorist being middle-eastern jumps sky-high.  We can’t ignore the fact that the odds get worse if we’re talking about men.  And the odds get even worse if we’re talking about a middle-eastern male somewhere between 17 and 35.

Brings the point… does something exist that is better than scanners overall?  YES!

They are called “dogs” and have been sniffing out explosives and drugs for a very long time.

For all the non-kaboom-ey stuff like non-metallic cutting things – knives or shards-o-glass and the like?   Several times now passengers have shown some real bravery in rising to the occasion and kicking the everlovin’ shite out of would-be terrorists.

Ol’ Blogger Bob also wrote this regarding the TSA’s alternative to the scanning, which is the good ol’ grope, errr, pat-down:

As I’ve said before, there is nothing punitive about it- it just makes good security sense.

TSA not punitiveOh they most certainly are.  And they most certainly will if we let them get away with it.

Read Full Post »