Wednesday, 24 November 2010

Clipfile

Clipfile - November 24, 2010

“We want our government to be like fire fighters: spend their days practicing driving big shiny trucks and having barbecues. In return for the minor inconvenience on the road and the easy 9 to 5, we expect them to be there when we need them.

Not this government: we have a crowd in power that prefers to create fire hazards, then takes pains to let them burn for maximum effect, just to justify taking more of our money because fires are really big and scary.” - “anonymous,” in a comment at Doug Ross’

Posted by: Old Grouch in Clipfile at 23:14:01 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

Rants

So now THEY’RE “uncomfortable”?

And the hits just keep on coming!  Dept
On Monday, the Transportation Security Administration briefed House staffers.  It appears the audience didn’t react quite as planned...
“The dumbest part: They did two pat-down demonstrations – male on male, and female on female,” the House staffer said.  And they used a young female TSA volunteer “and in front of a room of 200 people, they touched her breasts and her buttocks.  People were averting their eyes.  The TSA was trying to demonstrate ‘this is not so bad,’ but it made people so uncomfortable to watch, that people were averting their eyes.”
So just watching made spectators “uncomfortable,” huh?  (Sissies!)

Of course, as Politico commenter “MNresident” notes:
How can “The Hill” do anything about this when they EXEMPT themselves from it? [link added - o.g.]  The only thing these idiots will do is exempt themselves even more from it while passing more laws requiring everyone else to be assaulted.

Too true.  So just remember, friends, as you travel this holiday, it’ll be:

Exemptions for the connected...

...The Gloves for the rest of us.

UPDATE:  Coming to a train/boat/metro near you!

Hattips:
Politico link:  Quilly Mammoth, commenting at Ace.
Exemption story via Insty.
TSA Image sighted at Gateway Pundit.

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 00:06:04 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 4 kb.

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

Clipfile

Clipfile - November 23, 2010

“The ubermenschen of the Hollyweird-Ivy League-Lefty ruling class feel the voters, having abandoned them, are no longer worthy of their solicitude and should thus be Alinskyized in the same way as Conservatives, Libertarians, non-RINO Republicans, and Tea Partiers.” - “edutcher,” commenting at Althouse

Posted by: Old Grouch in Clipfile at 20:56:56 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Sunday, 21 November 2010

Clipfile

Clipfile - November 21, 2010

“...If we banned things on the basis of ugliness and relative uselessness, there's a whole lot of people who’d never be allowed out of the house.” - Roberta X

Posted by: Old Grouch in Clipfile at 17:29:35 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Saturday, 20 November 2010

Linkage

“There’s even a coupon...”


How to solve the healthcare problem:  Merge the TSA with the DHHS.

Posted by: Old Grouch in Linkage at 17:15:52 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Linkage

Ain’t it da trut’!


No outfit is complete without cat hair.

Posted by: Old Grouch in Linkage at 16:34:25 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Thursday, 18 November 2010

Linkage

New librarian-blog



(via: Charles G. Hill, who often seems to have read the entire internet.)

Posted by: Old Grouch in Linkage at 18:10:39 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Meta

Great minds run in the same river

(or whatever...)  Dept
At Watts Up With That?, Willis Eschenbach did a post about the Constructal Law of Flow Systems.  Guess which Mark Twain quote turned up in the comments.

Posted by: Old Grouch in Meta at 17:48:37 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Wednesday, 17 November 2010

Rants

Security Theater: Hijab carve-out on the way!

Soo-prize, soo-prize!  Dept
Feel safe yet?
CNS News:  On the pat downs, CAIR has recommended that Muslim women wearing hijabs refuse to go through the full body pat downs before boarding planes.  Will you insist that they do go through full body pat downs before boarding planes?

Janet Napolitano:  Look, we have, like I said before, we are doing what we need to do to protect the traveling public and adjustments will be made where they need to be made.  With respect to that particular issue, I think there will be more to come.  But, again, the goal here, you know, we’re not doing this just to do it. We’re doing it because we need to keep powders and gels and liquids off of planes that are unauthorized just as we need to keep metals off of planes.
Wrong.  The answer we’re looking for is, “Yes.”  As in, “Yes, we will require everyone to go through full-body pat-downs before boarding, and if CAIR doesn’t like it, they can get stuffed.”

Napolitano’s unwillingness to even approach the y-word means we can conclude that:
  • There will be a “Muslim exception,” continuing our political establishment’s program of making Muslims the new privileged class.  (And yes, it started with George Bush.)
  • None of this is about security.  Otherwise there would be no talk of “adjustments” that exempt the specific group of people whose members
    ...killed 3,000 innocents on 9/11; tried to detonate a shoe bomb on a flight; attempted to bring down airliners with liquid explosives; created parcel bombs in the hopes that they could rain airliners down on American cities; and also constructed undergarment bombs to slay men, women and children
    etcetera, etcetera...?
  • It’s all about power, and it always has been, so...
  • Shut up, bend over, and take it.
  • (Unless, of course, you’re a Muslim.)
Elsewhere:
Don Surber:  Napolitano must go.
Jay G.:  TSA Security Kabuki...  (via:  M’west Chick)

Previously:

(HT:  Doug Ross)

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 18:13:40 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 5 kb.

Tuesday, 16 November 2010

In Passing

Bad joke(?) of the day

Golly, who’d-a thunk it?  Dept
Rep. John Mica (R-FL), one of the authors of the 2001 law that created the Transportation Security Administration (and likely new chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure), demonstrates an astounding lack of imagination for someone who has been a member of congress since 1992:
When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees.
Bwahahahahahaha!  Stop it, yerkillinme!

Of course, as Ace notes, a return to private security would be no solution because:
1. Private companies will not impose Israeli-type security provisions either; they will immediately be sued out of existence by CAIR
...aided and abetted by various federal agencies...
for taking special notice of Muslim passengers.  The government is the only organization big enough to withstand such suits, but of course it never would do anything [link added- o.g.] that is so politically incorrect.
...certainly not as long as we have a government that won’t even name the enemy.
2, therefore, the choice isn’t really between strong security and weak and/or invasive security; it’s a choice between weak and/or invasive security and... well, there is no choice.  Whatever happens we will have weak and/or invasive security.

Meanwhile, Michael Aguilar, director of the TSA’s San Diego facility, has gotten all huffy over one citizen’s contempt-of-wannabe-cop. [HT: Patrick]:
The Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan.
...
Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe.  He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000.
...
According to Aguilar, Tyner is under investigation for leaving the security area without permission.  That’s prohibited, among other reasons, to prevent potential terrorists from entering security, gaining information, and leaving.
And remember, our taxes pay for all of this.

Elsewhere:

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 18:36:07 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 6 kb.

<< Page 1 of 3 >>
95kb generated in CPU 0.02, elapsed 0.0319 seconds.
53 queries taking 0.0129 seconds, 226 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.