Skip to main content

Are jackboots next for the TSA? After all, they already have the shiny badges....

As I was traveling through the George Bush International Airport at Houston (which George is not always clear) last week, I had the occasion to stand in the security line and take off my shoes.

There was one of those canned recordings playing that usually reminds you not to leave your luggage unattended or take materials from anybody with an Al Qaeda T-shirt. In this case, however, it advised me that "inappropriate jokes or language" during the screening process would render me subject to arrest.

Being too damn curious for my own good, I ventured a conversation with the bored TSA agent who had just used his decoder ring to discern that my driver's license carried the Ovaltine seal of approval, asking him what exactly constituted "inappropriate language." (I knew that "inappropriate jokes" would revolve around box cutters and bombs in my luggage--I'm not a complete freaking idiot.)

He looked at me, apparently examining my chin for moron drool, and said, "It's anything I say it is, buddy."

These are the same clowns who (not far down the road in Lubbock, Texas) recently forced a female traveler to use pliers to remove her own nipple rings before getting on a plane.

Now they're going to get blue shirts and shiny new badges:

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is starting to equip its 48,000 screeners with 3-inch-by-2-inch, silver-colored, copper and zinc badges that will be worn on new royal-blue police-style shirts.

The attire aims to convey an image of authority to passengers, who have harassed, pushed and in a few instances punched screeners. "Some of our officers aren't respected," TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said.


Among those who don't respect the TSA officers are the real police officers who have to work with them:

Actual airport police, who carry guns and have arrest powers, worry that their own authority will be undercut by screeners who look like police. Every major airport has its own police department or is patrolled by local police.

"A lot of cops at airports are not real thrilled about it," said Duane McGray of the Airport Law Enforcement Agencies Network, an airport police association. "It's another way of saying (to airport police), 'You're not important.' "


And what's not to respect? The gigantic Federal boondoggle (43,000 employees and a $6.4 billion dollar budget) that is the TSA costs the taxpayers (us!) almost ten buck ($9.94 for each of 647 million airline passenger trips in 2007) every time somebody takes his or her shoes off.

Ten dollars doesn't seem like a lot, does it? Especially if it makes us more secure.... Right?

Forget that the three-ounce rule on liquids is based on a complete ignorance of high-school chemistry, or that the need to take off your shoes is driven not by realistic fear of shoe bombs, but as an attempt to prevent smuggling.

Even ignore the fourth of science fiction writer Larry Niven's basic laws of the universe:

4) Giving up freedom for security has begun to look naive.

Even to me. Many of you were ahead of me on this. Three out of four hijacked airplanes destroyed the World Trade Center and a piece of the Pentagon in 2001. How is it possible that those planes were taken using only five perps armed with knives? It was possible because all those hundreds of passengers had been carefully stripped of every possible weapon. We may want to reconsider this approach. It doesn't work in high schools either.


All of that pales in significance next to the rigorous two-day course in talking nice to people that TSA screeners will have to pass in order to win the right to the uniforms and badges of rent-a-cops.

That's real safety.

Comments

You'll enjoy this from Walter Williams (one of my favorites):

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/06/18/airport_tyranny

The funniest part is that they actually have people whose job title is "BDO" which stands for "Behavoior Detection Officer". Yikes ! Sounds a little too 1984-ish for me.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...