The easiest way to get past airport security, without going through airport security, is to have an accommodating employee take you around the back way into the supposedly sterile area. Why would an airport employee do that?
There are at least two possible reasons. The first is that the employee is helping terrorists. The second is that the passenger is former Vice President Al Gore.
(Though I’m not sure if the difference there is all that significant.)
On Feb. 28, as he was leaving Nashville, Tenn., on his way somewhere else to lie about global warming to yet more people, an airport employee checking Gore in helped him and his entourage bypass the security checkpoint and go directly to his departure gate.
“There are no exceptions. Everyone must go through security,” airport spokesperson Lynn Lowrance said. . . .
“Everyone who comes through this public airport terminal must be screened, so it’s a breach of rules. It’s serious,” Lowrance said.
The airline employee took Gore down an elevator and then through a secure door. She ran her security card through the electronic lock a total of three times to let Gore and his two colleagues pass through the turnstile one at a time. — WTVF
He would have gotten away with it, too, if someone hadn’t been waiting for him just on the other side of the security checkpoint.
The breach was spotted by airport police officer Sgt. Gary Glover, who was assigned to wait for Gore to come through security and escort him to his gate.
After Gore never came through security, Glover found the former vice president, his communications director Kalee Kreider and another staffer waiting at the gate for the flight to Miami.
The officer asked the group if they went through security, and when they said they hadn’t, they were taken back and fully screened. Gore did not complain and cooperated fully, Lowrance said. — Associated Press
The airport employee was not named, and faces retraining. The problem, it seems, was one of communications, or perhaps of too much Southern hospitality. Maybe it was just undeserved hero worship. We’ll probably never know.
Gore’s communications director, Kalee Kreider, says her staff usually notifies airports ahead of time to make arrangements to ensure that the former vice president’s visit doesn’t cause major disruptions for other travelers. “It was just an unusual situation where he was taken past security and taken directly to the gate,” Kreider says. She adds that “we didn’t know if standards had changed or what. There are different policies at different airports and you basically do what you’re asked to do.” — USA TODAY
And unlike you, Al Gore made his flight.
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.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3231 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Ed
Mar 13, 2007
Thank you Al, for taking a commercial flight instead of flying a personal jet around the world
like many in government do. An ex-vice president flying commercially is to be commended.
Michael Hampton
Mar 13, 2007
Flying and flying and flying and flying and flying and flying and flying and flying and flying and flying and flying and flying and flying.
Not to mention burning far more than his fair share of energy at the mansion he calls a home.
Margery Bare
Mar 13, 2007
Homeland Stupidity is the right name for this publication if this is the kind of junk you write. Like all dignataries, Mr Gore and his group were lead to their destination and followed as they were told. First of all, its not his problem the hostess took him the wrong way. Second of all, is this all you got? I know its the internet, but please… don’t waste the paper you’re not writing on.
Michael Hampton
Mar 13, 2007
Since you didn’t come here for a reasonable discussion, or even a somewhat heated debate, there’s little point in attempting to respond. But please, if you can calm down and start acting like an adult, feel free to engage in an actual discussion.
Fraud Guy
Mar 13, 2007
I am amused by the communications director’s explanation of why they accepted the proffered security breach: “we didn’t know if standards had changed or what. There are different policies at different airports and you basically do what you’re asked to do.” Since they are flying and flying and flying….they have probably seen many insecurity variations, and know that they are mainly useless for actual security.
cathleeninnh
Mar 13, 2007
The airport employee was not named, and faces retraining.
I love that. OOOH, that’ll teach em.
Verbos
Mar 13, 2007
@Margery Bare
Gag at a gnat and swallow a camel.
Gimme Castro
Mar 13, 2007
The cult of Gore and the dogma of Global Warming. This “dignitary” can do no wrong in the eyes of his worshipers.
It’s the new world religion and Homeland Stupidity is the heretic. Shun the Unbeliever! Shuuuuuuun!
Potential Threat
Mar 13, 2007
On Feb. 28, as he was leaving Nashville, Tenn., on his way somewhere else to lie about global warming to yet more people…
Whether Gore was leaving Nashville to lie about global warming, diddle your sister or cure cancer is irrelevant.
Your statement makes it sound like you think people with views you don’t agree with are somehow less eligible to travel. Maybe TSA should start interviewing all passengers to find out what they’ll be doing at the other end of their flights just in case there might be anything you find disagreeable going on. Once it happens, you’ll have something else to write an article about. Free bonus!
If I may back Margery Bare up for a minute: I started reading this site regularly because I enjoyed the sarcastic wit that was accompanied with the making of some very good points. Lately it’s gone downhill, and if this article is indicative of a trend then you’ve lost yourself a reader.
–Po, who reminds you of the words of John Stuart Mill: “Liberty resides in the rights of those whose views you find most odious.”
Michael Hampton
Mar 13, 2007
People with views I don’t agree with are eligible to be made fun of.
As for Al Gore, he appears here because he was given special treatment for his celebrity status. You can be sure this guy will never get “SSSS” printed on his boarding pass and have a metal detector wand shoved between his legs.
You can also be sure that if that airport worker had walked anybody else down the back hallways to the departure gate, she wouldn’t just be going back through training again.
What I find ridiculous, and for whatever reason you missed this point, is that Al Gore is somehow a celebrity. I concede that he did win an Oscar for his science fiction film, but still, they don’t do this for Britney Spears.
Michael Hampton
Mar 13, 2007
P.S. If you are really finding so much disagreeable content lately, try leaving a comment. I’ve certainly seen you do it before when you agree with something.
Potential Threat
Mar 13, 2007
Like him or not, Al is also actually unlikely to be a threat to the plane he’s flying on, which gives TSA more time to frisk those 80-year-old nuns in wheelchairs.
–Po
Michael Hampton
Mar 13, 2007
Don’t forget, more time to play basketball with seized water bottles full of potential explosives, tossing them at the trash bins.
Mar 13, 2007
TSA “surges” screening in airport secure areas - Homeland Stupidity
Ray
Mar 14, 2007
One has to wonder if there was not a problem of having Gore waiting in line like a sitting duck in a public area. Certainly if I was the type that would want to shoot him, and knew he was taking this flight this might be a perfect time to do so. Of course there is also the issue of an extra person joining his group as I am sure he was not the only one who was bypassed around security.
Q
Mar 21, 2007
lets not forget the pope. as far as i know his bags don’t get checked either.
Ron Roush
Mar 25, 2007
“‘Everyone who comes through this public airport terminal must be screened, so it’s a breach of rules. It’s serious,’ Lowrance said.” If only that were true. TSA policy contains a standard list of screening exemptions representing many people that you wouldn’t trust to watch your house or around your children.
Winston Hardy
Mar 25, 2007
> (Though I’m not sure if the difference there is all that significant.)
That’s a dumb and shrill comment, far more appropriate for the partisan squabbling between Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum than a pro-liberty website.
It is embarrassing to watch you posturing and mouthing platitudes about “acting like an adult” and “actual discussion” when this is the way you write. Please feel free to show in a level-headed and logical argument how Gore is “helping terrorists”, or at least how he is doing so any more than the current President and the statist establishment in general.
Sadly, I have to say that the quality of this blog is quickly deteriorating. I used to find it refreshing and convincing, but lately more and more of the above petulant and tired rhetoric is finding its way into your writing. The more of this you do, the faster you will transform your audience into an echo chamber, and reduce any actual influence Homeland Stupidity has in the real world.
I guess you’re “radicalized” now that you have joined the FSF. A shame, then, that your behavior doesn’t do your own political group any favors, but only helps further its reputation as a magnet for disgruntled Republicans and jingoistic nutcases — yet another bunch of narrow-minded angry extremists who like to wrap themselves in the “freedom” flag.
Good job!
WH
Winston Hardy
Mar 25, 2007
(Oops, I meant FSP, not FSF)
Michael Hampton
Mar 25, 2007
Thanks for your criticism. Though I have no idea what the FSP has to do with the topic at hand.
As for the quality of this site, I admit this wasn’t one of my best posts. Far from it. But if you really think the rest of the site “is quickly deteriorating,” then perhaps you could offer some constructive criticism instead.
Winston Hardy
Mar 25, 2007
1) “Though I have no idea what the FSP has to do with the topic at hand.”
The FSP comes in simply because you have recently entered a high level of commitment to it, what with moving to New Hampshire and so forth.
While it would be nice to imagine the FSP as a set of fully self-determined individuals who will never fall into the usual traps of “movements,” it is still a kind of group. And we all know what happens to groups sometimes, despite their best intentions, which is why we observe them carefully and apply healthy skepticism. Like it or not, since you are closely associated to this particular group, your statements will be used by people to help form their opinion of it.
Many fence-sitters are hoping to discover that the FSP is something new, different — a better implementation of liberty-oriented ideas that won’t reproduce the ineffective and divisive bullshit that has gone on for way too long on the mainstream stage, and which has now reached a stage of advanced decomposition. Shrill language about Democrat politicians “helping OMG fnord terrorists” is not a good way of convincing potential allies of this. To those who refuse to be manipulated by the fear-driven propaganda which the state is so fond of using right now, you sound just like Chavez calling Bush “the Devil.”
2) “But if you really think the rest of the site “is quickly deteriorating,†then perhaps you could offer some constructive criticism instead.”
I appreciate your apparent willingness to hear constructive criticism and will make an effort to really spell out some of it, for what it’s worth.
For me Homeland Stupidity shines when you adopt an objective, sober tone that manages to be forceful simply by its reliance on facts, logic and research. You have done this often in the past, and it was unfair on my part to suggest that it isn’t happening anymore. However, I believe that the problems I have attempted to outline, in my previous post and in 1) above, are serious enough to undermine much of your style’s effectiveness.
Even in posts that cover the FSP’s activities and protests — and the FSP certainly doesn’t present itself as politically neutral/moderate — you often manage to keep your writing free of buzzwords and overused memes (“helping our enemies”). That’s what I think you should stick to. Fnords work on true believers and sleepwalkers; free-thinkers see them and are turned off by them.
Besides, there is no need to rely on the power of rhetoric when it comes to (most of) the content you produce. The _facts_ are on *your* side. Reading an intelligent description of the latest encroachment on freedom — backed up by original sources, some of your own original reporting and plenty of common sense — is *much* more convincing than rabble-rousing.
So this is my constructive criticism; and I assure you, I mean it. Keep focused on what you do best: you show an insightful, “technical” mind which you can use to look at issues objectively and then convey that understanding, persuasively, in writing. Keep doing that, and trim all the fat you possibly can. Random jabs at a particular political faction don’t help any of us in the long run; they just alienate part of your audience, are unnecessary, and should therefore be edited out.
Of course, in the end this is your blog, and the above is just my point of view; maybe you completely disagree with it. But you asked, so there.
Winston Hardy
Mar 25, 2007
I just posted a long reply, but I don’t see it published in the comments. Trying again results in a “duplicate comment” error, so maybe you just have moderation enabled for long posts.
If it’s not there just say so, I’ll send it once more.
Best,
WH
Michael Hampton
Mar 25, 2007
One of the hazards of using Tor (for you, the reader) is that spammers also use it, and so your comments will occasionally get marked as spam. I check for this regularly and rescue the comments whenever I see them.
As for the FSP, the people in this movement are wide and varied and thinking I somehow represent them all — or even a subset of them — is quite silly. The only thing they have in common is a desire to see government’s influence over people’s lives wane. That said, I want to see government shrunk down to the point where I can drown it in the bathtub.
For my writing, thanks for the comments. I invite you to read the rest of the site, and perhaps more recent posts. And as always, the comment form is an invitation to discussion on the topics at hand.
Verbos
Mar 25, 2007
Gee I thought the point of the article was to point out the elitists who run this country. Some people think we just don’t like DummyCrats.
Winston Hardy
Mar 26, 2007
Michael:
Think it’s silly as much as you want, I’ll bet you do exactly the same. Meet a few goths, or punks, or impressionist painters, or whatever — of course you haven’t met all of them, and of course each of them is an individual who doesn’t “represent” the category, strictly, but still you’re forming an _opinion_ of that category based on your _experience_ of people who identify with it. The fact that you don’t represent the FSP is a strawman. By your logic, we shouldn’t be able to talk about categories at all. Democrats? Statists? Neo-cons? All collections of individuals! None of them has anything to do with any of the others, at all! Of course!
Verbos:
The point is I’m making is not what “the point of the article was.” I agree with what the article is saying, yet I don’t go around claiming that my political opponents “love terror” or similar. I don’t need to, I don’t find it enlightening, and I tend to think that people who do are misusing strong terms and engaging in a sort of propaganda. Their arguments are weakened by it.
The airwaves and public discourse are increasingly polluted by this kind of contentless posturing. It’s not a useful way of debating, I’m tired of it and disappointed to see it used in support of ideas I largely agree with. Is that so very hard to understand?