With each passing day, airport security becomes even more surreal. It’s becoming increasingly clear to even the infrequent traveler that Homeland Security has become just another government bureaucracy more interested in enforcing its rules without rhyme or reason than in keeping anyone safe. Here are a few bizarre things that happened over the Thanksgiving holiday.
Thousands of Americans this holiday season are going to go without Grandmother’s homemade pie, because the Transportation Security Administration has apparently banned pies from aircraft. “In the last two days, we have taken a dozen baked pies,” Rick DeChant, TSA assistant federal security director at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, told the ClevelandPlain Dealer. But the pies didn’t get thrown out like all the other potentially explosive liquids seized at the checkpoint. Instead, the potentially explosive pies were fed to soldiers waiting for connecting flights in the USO lounge.
But the ban on pies appears to be inconsistently applied. Mark Ashley atUpgrade: Travel Better points out that other airports will happily let Grandma carry on her special apple pie she made just for you. “Well, so much for common sense,” he wrote.
And you don’t have to be anywhere near Washington to hear the bureaucrats’ political ass-covering on homeland security. It’s clearly audible at any airport in the country. Over and over and over and over and over again. Which is why people have just stopped paying attention to the ridiculous security alerts. “The problem is not that people are cavalier about terrorism,” writesWashington Post columnist Shankar Vedantam. “The problem is that when a warning is repeated over and over — and then nothing bad happens — the human brain is designed to discount the warning.”
As well it should. The bureuacrats in Washington have completely overblown the threat of terrorism.
In fact, I think it’s time to take a good hard look at that color-coded homeland security advisory system and find out what those alert levels really mean.
The size of your headache as you finally enter the airport’s “sterile area.” How pissed off you are at how much aspirin costs in the airport.
How frustrated you are with the checkpoint screeners themselves, most of whom seem to be mentally retarded, and very few of whom can identify a real security threat.
What happens to your blood pressure while waiting in line at airport security and watching the person ahead of you get arrested for trying to take a rubber band ball onto the plane.
This advisory level, and the lowest one, will never actually be used, because then politicians would have a much harder time scaring people into abject submission.
The real risk of terrorists hijacking your plane and killing you.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Gardner Goldsmith explains why claims by politicians that consumers can become "irrational" and why claims by the same politicians that government can help "fix" markets are both false and misleading. He also explains what the terms Praxeology and Epistemology mean, which is key in understanding how to place free markets in their proper place among human history.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Potential Threat
Nov 28, 2006
And, of course, now knowing this, all the Russians need to do is to let the TSA confiscate some pies laced with Po-210 and feed them to whoever’s in the USO lounge and…
You get the picture.
–Po
...-.-... ~the mole~
Nov 28, 2006
the sad thing is its all true
michael
Nov 28, 2006
It’s clear to me that you are a jackass and that you truly have not voiced an opinion based on the facts. I would suggest that you take a job with the TSA or with any other organization that works for your security. You are the kind of person I would not want to rely on when the chips are down, as you do nothing but spout negativity with threadbare conclusions.
The people in the TSA do a job every day that has a direct affect on millions of lives. Yes it is a pain to have to adjust to the latest threat etc. but isn’t it good that they are adjusting so your plane is more secure?
Honestly, I do think it’s better to fly on something that is checked V something that is not.
There is no perfect system, and there never will be, but unless you want to totally give up “carry on” items on your flight there is no alternative than to examine what you carry and ban the items that are a potential threat even if it “looks” like a pie.
Are you that simple to suggest that airline security is not neccessary? Do you not recall airline incidents long before 911? Do you feel that the private/profit sector will always maintain a high level of threat adjustment no matter the cost?
Do you recall the types of screeners we had pre 911? The amount of training, and retraining they received?
Again I have to reiterate that you are a shortsighted jackass, who does not understand anything except your own inconveniences.
Michael Hampton
Nov 28, 2006
That’s too bad, because I’m a hell of a lot more useful when the shit hits the fan than most of those TSA employees.
As for the rest of your comment, you completely missed the point. First, everything I said is fully backed up by fact. Second, I never suggested getting rid of airport security; rather, I suggested actually GETTING some airport security.
michael
Nov 28, 2006
Again Michael,
You know nothing about the TSA other than how you feel that it inconveniences you.
A lot of what happens when a large spread out organization has to adjust to a change be it sudden or planned is confusion.
Try to get the word out to 50,000 people about a sudden change in policy in any organization and you will see that no matter how well you plan or disseminate those changes there will be inconsistancies as the organization adjusts. Do this on the fly for something that should be implemented for security purposes immediately and you’ll see what I’m defending here.
The end result is that you get people who cry over not taking a pie on a plane and people like you who pick up the cause of that pie.
It’s not that there are 50,000 non dedicated people out there it’s that there are people who whine and moan and feel victimized, because they were not able to bring a pie on their flight.
That kind of crap should not be in the news but sadly it is thanks to people like you.
The TSA does not collectively wake up each day and decide that since it’s Tuesday they will make everyone take their shoes off. They react to direct threats that would behoove that everyone on a flight should have their shoes inspected.
I personally prefer flying on planes that receive as much scrutiny as possible, and again I tell you that the ultimate solution is to not allow carry on items. Is the public going to stand for that?
I would have to say that the condition of airline security is now better since 911. Be realistic the next time you are crossing a checkpoint and look at the individuals doing the job. Try to recall what it was like before. You now have a common language,and a more dedicated, trained person doing the job. I know you see it.
It’s a new and evolving organization and there are going to be growing pains, starts, and stops and a few mishaps.
Aside from pissing on the troops who are working for your safety you seem to be fairly intelligent. I think you should start being a little more honest about what you see and look at things in a larger scope.
Airline security is a big problem, and the smooth flow of passengers, cargo etc. affects all of us at all times..look at the macro of things for just a minute. It’s getting better as the organization grows.
Michael – Logan Airport – Boston
Potential Threat
Nov 28, 2006
Be realistic the next time you are crossing a checkpoint and look at the individuals doing the job.
Would these be the individuals with a high school diploma or GED and no prior security experience that TSA was practically begging to recruit as screeners in radio ads? The ones who show very little sign of being able to think for themselves? (“Sorry, sir, you have to put that 1 oz tube of lip balm in a quart bag or I’ll have no way of knowing if it’s less than a quart.”)
Yeah, I see lots of people at security checkpoints who sacrificed a career at Google or Merill-Lynch to be screeners.
Michael – Logan Airport – Boston
Aha. Now we’re getting somewhere.
The fact is, Michael, that the Kip Hawley is an idiot incident and those of its ilk pretty much sum up your organization’s problem: its screeners can’t seem to evaluate distasteful-but-non-threat situations in a detached manner (the hallmark of a real professional, by the way). It reeks of hall monitors looking for some excuse to use what little power they’ve been given.
As for the subject at hand, pies: a pie could very well constitute a real threat, especially if it has a weapon baked into it. But you guys have X-ray machines, right? Well, how did Logan do last time DHS tried to put weapons and explosives through security? You don’t get to count the times your management let you know ahead of time that a test was about to happen. (I know, you can’t say. SSI. Don’t worry, the terrorists will figure it out for themselves or find another airport through wich to enter.)
I don’t think anyone here is trying to say that security at airports should be done away with. TSA’s foibles deserve to be in the news. As a taxpayer, I’d like to know if I’m getting my money’s worth, and I’m not going to tolerate the government I’m paying for saying “just trust us, you’re secure.” As a frequent flyer I’d like to know if I’m going to have to take matters into my own hands when some yahoo on a plane tries to use something that you people missed because TSA was too busy defending Kip Hawley’s honor.
–Po
Daniel
Nov 28, 2006
Michael, I think you’ve been drinking too much of the special TSA kool-aid. And if I recall correctly, one of the most deficient airports in a security audit was Logan, and the problem wasn’t passenger screening. But passenger screening is visible, which makes people like ermmm ,you feel secure, rather than being secure.
Scott
Nov 29, 2006
What I find most interesting about the security topic in general is that people honestly beleive that the government can keep them safe. I would like to point something out. If our own government being deployed in Iraq full supporting the Iraq Army and such, there is still A LOT of attacks happening. So, if our own government can’t even prevent attacks in Iraq (with a full Military deployment there) what on God’s green earth makes people think that they can prevent all (let alone any) attacks on U.S. soil?
Simple answer: They can’t! If they can’t do it in Iraq, they sure as heck can’t do it here. And the U.S. Sheeple are giving up their rights and freedoms for something that can never truly be promissed by the government.
Kevin Fields
Dec 01, 2006
Yes, I remember how much crap the airlines took for lax airport screener training pre-9/11. Quite frankly, a terrorist attack has NOT changed that at all. Most of it was parted out to private screeners who paid minimum wage before 9/11, it was then turned over to government employees post 9/11, and when it became clear that they wern’t any better at the job, they went back to the minimum wage private screeners because it was cheaper.
J. Philip
Dec 01, 2006
I quit flying, when TSA and Homeland Security decides to profile Islamic Terrorist Savages and not Grandmaw, maybe, just maybe, I will return.
,
Dec 01, 2006
Lots of Good Reasons to Drive at ten billion butterfly sneezes
Jon
Dec 05, 2006
Automobile accidents are one of the single largest takers of American life, many thousands a year I believe (I believe a single year is greater than lives lost in the entire history of air travel, including 9/11). This threat could be virtually eliminated by instituting a 10 MPH speed limit on all roadways. Then we would be safe.
Why don’t we have a 10 MPH speed limit? Because the risk of saving time by traveling at more deadly speeds is acceptable. What is my proposed solution to all of this? Instead of having Kip Hawley decide that a 1 quart plastic bag will make us safe, we have insurance actuaries make decisions based on real risk. We’ll never catch all the terrorists but even if they do take down a plane or 2, it’s still magnitudes safer than driving. Eventually once the terrorists realize they are unable to make us fill our pants every time we travel, they’ll move on to something else.
What is more dangerous, a 6oz tube of hair gel or driving 65 MPH? I’m sure an actuary could tell us. It’s very clear Kip could not.
Since we have fixed the cockpit door problem and eliminated our Hollywood movie view of terrorists, I believe sufficient security would be what they have instituted at many amusement parks. A quick trip through the magnetometer and a 5 second search of your bag for contraband. I am sure the parks insurance companies find this to be sufficient and I trust them. I’m sure the airlines insurance companies could come up with similar guidelines.
Lynne
Mar 05, 2007
TSA would not be so irritating if the whole system was not so ‘reactive’. They seem to lack any foresight into what ‘could’ happen, and only respond to events. With the latest ‘liquid’ restrictions, I now go through security needing 2 extra hands as I am juggling my laptop out of its case, my one quart bag, my shoes and my carry-on. Before all of this I was a 100k flyer, now I drive 90% of the time and fly only when there is no other option.