So now THEY’RE “uncomfortable”?

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:



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

Hattips:

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

Bad joke(?) of the day

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.

Would it were so...

Rich Galen has hopes that with a new congress:

...that pesky Article I of the U.S. Constitution might be given a shot of adrenaline.

Article I begins thus:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Not in the Oval Office; not in the Departments and Agencies; not in the offices of the many Czars within the Executive Office of the President, but in “a Congress of the United States.”

But that would mean congress taking responsibility and accountability for government actions!  As the Brits say, not bloody likely...

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 16:38:14 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

Jeffrey Goldberg stumbles over the obvious

Goldberg:

It is a source of continual astonishment to me that pilots — many of whom, it should be pointed out, are military veterans who possess security clearances — are not allowed to carry onboard their airplanes pocket knives and bottles of shampoo, but then they’re allowed to fly enormous, fuel-laden, missile-like objects over American cities.

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 19:35:00 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

My biggest problem with daylight savings:

Convincing the cats to reset.


Previous grumbles:

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 16:02:42 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Mark Twain on mathematical extrapolation

Roberta has put up a post in which she marvels at

...how short a time it took for statistical analysis of mass behavior of large groups to be considered with an eye to predicting and possibly manipulating the outcome.

Her citations of a couple of pre-World-War-II projects give me an excuse for hauling out this 1883-vintage example of mathematical prediction which still should stand as a lesson to us all.

(As Mr.Clemens spends a couple of pages setting things up, you’ll find it all  below the break.)

more...

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 16:51:41 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 870 words, total size 6 kb.

Do I detect a sign of celebration?

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 22:18:34 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.