- I didn’t know airports could fire the TSA and hire their own screeners. Did you? Apparently one of the poly-tick-ans who helped create The Sexual Assaulters is now urging airports to do so. Gotta love this, though: “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.” Because, you know. Stuff like that never happens.
- A heartwarming story. But more than that; a tale of complexity. And quiet individual initiative.
- This one’s just plain heartwarming. Also an example of dubious math. But what the heck. The BUDDIES sanctuary reminds me of this place.
- Well … that’s one way to do it. Or you could try one of these. (Tip o’ hat to Sam.)
- Thanksgiving.
Book update: Books arrived from Paladin yesterday. Yay! All pending orders went in the mail within an hour. (Except yours A., which requires extra TLC and will be on its way today.)
After fulfilling those orders, I have seven copies of Bad Attitude remaining. Also one copy each of The Freedom Outlaws Handbook ($30) and one of the 2002 edition of I Am Not a Number! ($25). The latter isn’t completely up to date, but it’s still a good read. (Email me if you want those two: books at hermit.cotse.net.) And of course, I have all the copies of Hardyville Tales anybody could ever need. 🙂
I’ll order more if there’s enough holiday demand that I should keep ’em coming. So far, fantastic. Lots of people who bought books for themselves are ordering the special gift-book deals for Christmas/Hannukah/Solstice/and maybe even Kwanzaa. (Though I sorta doubt the latter. “Unity and collective economics”? “Believing in our educators and our leaders”? Um … no probably not a lot of Kwanzaa gifts around here.)
COUGH!
[quote]
A number of studies done since then have shown that contractors perform a bit better than federal screeners, and they’re also more flexible and open to innovation. (The federal government pays the cost of screening whether performed by the TSA or by contractors, and contractors work under federal supervision.)
[/quote]
A “bit better” and the “private contractors” would remain paid for and under “federal supervision”?
Doesn’t sound like much of an opt out or any improvement to me.
I’d join the new “I Won’t Be Home for Christmas” project: http://campgroundpirateradio.com/2010/11/i-wont-be-home-for-christmas/
But I wasn’t planning on flying anywhere anyway.
The Sussman story-If I had the money, that’s what I would do, but I would make sure those who recieved the money never found out who I was, that way, I could continue to help those I felt needed it without any interference. I wouldn’t be in it for the drama(that’s what I’d want to avoid),but to help as many of those that needed it as I could.
Scott, I too have always thought that anonymous gifts to people genuinely in need are the best. They are also the most satisfying for me as the giver. It’s amazing what can be accomplished if you don’t care who gets the credit.
Being 60, with not much left to be modest about, I’d love to book a flight then stand in line and strip naked as my personal form of protest. Imagine an airport full of voluntarily naked people. What a hoot! Unfortunately, no money to pay the fine that I’m sure would be forthcoming. ;-p
I always like the heartwarming animal story links. We have a local no-kill rescue sanctuary where they take in primarily pit bulls after Denver and some other cities banned them. http://www.mariahspromise.com/about.html There’s a far better case for euthanizing some people than there is for euthanizing a dog breed(IMO).
“There’s a far better case for euthanizing some people than there is for euthanizing a dog breed”
Ain’t that the truth !
As for the Sussman story, the sub story to that is how pathetic people can be once they turn on a computer, like they have a new found power to trash and judge people they’d never have the guts to do in person….usually they always get proven wrong, too, hehehe…..
Not to change the subject, but I don’t know where to put this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40261971/ns/local_news-new_york_ny/?gti=43001
WTF?
The TSA claims that even if an airport opts-out and chooses to hire private screeners, “the screeners still must follow TSA guidelines. That would include using enhanced pat-downs and the full-body scanners if they are installed at the airport.” according to this article: http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/11/sanford-airport-to-opt-out-of.html
The comments on that kilt proposal included an idea to warn the groper that you have incontinence issues. That could make things interesting. (Smelly, yes, but the look on the TSAers face would be priceless)
There is also a website selling underwear with a supposedly TSA-scanner-proof panel which will hide “your junk” from unfriendly eyes. I saw it in passing, I’ll see if I can find that link again.
Here we go, for girls: http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/product.php?productid=17545&cat=263&page=1
For boys: http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/product.php?productid=17544&cat=263&bestseller=Y
No idea if or how well they tested it.
I love the comments over at Tam’s:
“Start flailing around like a small child, screaming “Bad touch” and crying for your mommy. Bonus points if you actually wet your pants. You can claim it was a repressed/delayed reaction to an incident involving a department-store Santa when you were four.”
Awesome!
More fun from Ron Paul
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.6416:
You know those guys over there? The Troops that’s been sent over to Iraq and Afghanistan “fighting for democracy”? The same people we entrust with big powerful weapons?
Well,
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/
Toeclippers, Oooooo!
Re: The link Jim B. posted:
I don’t know why I’m astonished, I should be use to that kind of stupidity by now…..The TSA crew should be glad there were no bullets, or didn’t receive a smack over their heads…….