Women with Large Breasts beware your Next Trip through Airport Security

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 18th, 2013

Week in Review

You ladies thought it was bad enough going through airport security?  Think again (see Fears Over Al Qaeda ‘Breast Implant Bomb’ Causing Long Lines At London’s Heathrow Airport by Pamela Engel posted 8/16/2013 on Business Insider).

Lines at London’s Heathrow Airport are “much longer than usual at this time of the year” because of fears that Al Qaeda terrorists have developed explosives that can be implanted in people, The Mirror reports.

Body scanners can detect items that people are carrying with them, but they aren’t able to catch devices that are inside of the body.

Heathrow Airport is reportedly concerned about women suicide bombers who conceal explosive materials inside breast implants…

U.K. officials reportedly have “credible intelligence” that terrorists are plotting attacks on airplanes flying out of London, and security staff have been told to “pay particular attention to females who may have concealed hidden explosives in their breasts,” an airport staff member told The Mirror.

This cannot go well.

“Hello, ladies.  Those are some nice breasts you have there.  Let me study them a moment.  Yes.  Nice.  Large.  Shapely.  Firm.  Supple.  Hmm.  Could they be hiding a bomb?  This will require a closer look, yes?  Perhaps a look beneath your brassier.  To look for any telltale signs of a recent surgery.  Or a gentle hand massage.  A kneading of the breast tissue.  To make sure there’s nothing but breast tissue there.  But there’s nothing to worry about, ma’am.  For I am a trained airport security screening professional.  Rest assured I don’t enjoy playing with women’s breasts all day long.”

Yeah, right.  The first time some college coeds come through the screening line it’ll be like a Russ Meyer film.  Of course, imagine the fallout should they single out a woman in Muslim garb for closer scrutiny.  The firestorm would be so great that you can just imagine that Muslims will not be searched as much as some other women.  Such as the ladies that could have had a starring role in a Russ Meyer film.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

‘More Taxes, Regulations, Uncertainty and Spending’ is the Mantra of the Obama Administration

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2011

Obama’s Proposed Aviation Fees will Fall Predominantly on the People who can Least Afford It

In Obama‘s deficit reduction plan he plans to tax the rich.  Those who can most afford it.  Rich people.  And by rich people he means anyone who has any money to spend (see Airline groups attack Obama proposals to boost fees for aviation security, air traffic control by Associated Press posted 9/21/2011 on The Washington Post).

The aviation fees are part of Obama’s deficit-cutting plan that was released Tuesday. The plan would:

— raise the passenger security fee — now $5 to $10 per round trip — to $15 by 2017 and give the Homeland Security Department the power to push it higher.

— impose a surcharge of $100 per flight to help pay for air traffic control.

But college students fly.  Middle class families fly on vacation.  Non-rich people everywhere fly to visit family members that have moved away.  A lot of people fly.  And an interesting tidbit about the flying public?  They’re not all rich.

The rich people that Obama wants to tax?  Because they can most afford it?  Those well-to-do folk who fly those private jets?  Well, a lot of them do just that.  Fly private jets.  And, therefore, do NOT fly on commercial planes.  So they won’t be paying these new taxes/fees.  So these taxes/fees will fall predominantly on the people who can least afford it.  Imagine that.

The Air Transport Association, which represents large airlines, said it’s unfair for airlines and passengers to pay for security against terror attacks that target the U.S. and not the airlines themselves. The trade group says a typical $300 round-trip ticket already includes $60 in taxes and fees.

The Regional Airline Association, a group of smaller carriers, said the fees could lead to a loss of flights to smaller cities. The group’s president, Roger Cohen, said the $100 surcharge would cost more than regional airlines earned last year, threatening service to smaller cities.

The groups also complained that some of the money raised from airlines and passengers would be used to pay down the federal budget deficit and not to improve the air-travel system.

The airlines have a vested interest in protecting their planes.  Because they bought them.  And planes that blow up or crash in terrorist attacks don’t help the bottom line.  There’s the loss of an expensive airplane.  And the future revenue from that airplane.  The cost of replacing that airplane.  And the lost business from passengers who tend to shy away from an airline whose planes are easy pickings for terrorists.

So let them hire a security contractor to secure their planes.  Using the Israeli model.  Ask very pointed questions and observe people’s responses.  It works well for the Israelis.  Couldn’t be any worse than what the TSA is doing.  I mean, what passengers are going to complain about being groped less?

The administration estimated that boosting passenger security fees will raise $24.9 billion over 10 years. It proposed to spend $15 billion of that to reduce federal debt.

This is telling.  The airlines did not run up that federal debt. So there’s something really troubling about this.  Taking $15 billion from the airlines under the auspices of national security.  Just so they can continue their irresponsible spending ways in Washington.  This is no different than an addict stealing from his mother’s purse to support his habit.

This is Washington’s problem.  Not the airlines.  Washington has a spending problem.  And they can’t stop spending.  Or simply choose not to.  Instead they look for other people to steal from.  Like an addict.  While denying that they have a problem.  And always blaming others.  Like the rich who don’t pay their fair share.  And by rich they mean anyone that has any money to spend.

Tax Cuts Stimulate, not Keynesian Stimulus Spending Funded by Taxes

So how bad is this spending?  How much of a debt problem has it given us?  That the president is shaking down the airlines for $15 billion (see Committee Searches for Economic ‘Tipping Point’; Prefer Not to Find It by Jim Angle posted 9/20/2011 on Fox News)?

“We know that the debt is now 100 percent — approximately 100 percent of (gross domestic product),” said Allan Meltzer, a professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “That doesn’t include the unfunded liabilities. It doesn’t include (mortgage lenders)Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It doesn’t include a number of other things.”

By unfunded liabilities, Meltzer means entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare alone have $46 trillion in unfunded liabilities, meaning that much more is promised in benefits than the government — and taxpayers — have as a plan to pay for them.

Oh.  It’s that bad.  We owe a dollar for every dollar our economy produces.  But it’s even worse than this.  All of those unfunded liabilities that don’t appear in the official budget.  Fannie and Freddie.  And let’s not forget the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.  Which are filled only with IOUs from Uncle Sam.  Because Uncle Sam spent our money.  That money we put aside with each paycheck.  Those FICA and Medicare withholdings.  That money they forced us to save.  Because we were untrustworthy with our own money.  As they apparently are, too.

Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, argues that U.S. debt is so far out of control that it must be contained soon.

“We’ve had five trillion (in) deficit spending since 2008, the most enormous sort of Keynesian stimulus you can imagine, and yet we’ve had slower growth than any time since World War II. So I don’t think spending helps.”

So the government owes more money than taxpayers can fund.  And yet that didn’t stop them from spending $5 trillion more.  For stimulus.  Which is just code for throwing money at political cronies.  I mean, it’s obvious that it didn’t stimulate anything.  Because the economy is still in the toilet.

And there’s a very good reason for that.  Because tax cuts stimulate.  Not Keynesian stimulus spending funded by taxes.

Meltzer pointed to three “fiscal changes that really did enormous good.” One was the tax cuts from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, the most effective part of which were business tax cuts.

“They got the biggest bang for the buck,” he said.

The second were the Reagan-era tax cuts which came in two rounds and boosted a flagging economy. Meltzer said a completely different option worked well too.

“(The) third policy that gave people confidence were the Clinton tax increases, which assured people that their future tax rates were not going to go up, that they had seen what they were going to have to take, and there wouldn’t be anymore.”

Meltzer said the increases gave people certainty about what tax rates would be, which reassured businesses they wouldn’t go higher, allowing employers to plan and create jobs with confidence.

The Clinton tax increases?  That’s not why the Nineties were booming.  It was because of greedy capitalists.  Looking to strike it rich in the dot-com boom.  The economy was smoking hot because of irrational exuberance.  Not higher taxes.  And the budget went into surplus when all those dot-com people cashed in their stock options.  And they paid a boatload of capital gains taxes.  Before the dot-com bubble burst.  And threw the economy into recession.

But he’s right on the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts.  Both used good Austrian supply-side economics.  Which exploded economic activity.  And similar policies could do that again.  If we would just stop with the Keynesian nonsense.  And the belief that crippling regulations will spur economic growth.

Business Owners Hate Uncertainty because, Unlike Uncle Sam, they can’t Print Money

And speaking of regulation, remember the Dodd-Frank act?  Have you read it?  Probably not.  For I doubt anyone in Congress has read it in its entirety (see Dodd-Frank and Uncertainty by Veronique de Rugy posted 9/20/2011 on National Review).

Remember how President Obama promised that the Dodd-Frank bill would provide certainty, stability and growth…?

It’s 1,623 pages long. It is very heavy. If it could fit it in my purse, I could use it as a protective weapon. Whatever else this will do, however, it will not make lending cheaper or credit more readily available, and it will not protect us from another financial crisis. And it will not protect consumers or taxpayers.

What it will do, and already does, is continue injecting gigantic uncertainty into the economy, paralyzing entrepreneurship and job creation. Imagine how long it will take for all the rules to be written and for U.S. businesses to figure out how they are supposed to operate from now on. The vagueness of the law as written means that even business owners and consumers who have the courage to pick up this book and try to figure out what’s in their future won’t get the answers they are looking for.

Really, is there any doubt that some of the $2 trillion in cash that companies are sitting on is a direct result of this uncertainty?

That’s right.  If you don’t know what tomorrow may bring you save your money.  You deleverage.  Pay down debt.  And hoard cash.  Because cash is king.  It’s the only thing you can pay your employees with.  The only thing you can pay your suppliers with.  The only thing you can pay for your insurance with.  And it’s the only thing you can pay Uncle Sam with.  So if you don’t have enough of it around during bad times you may not be around for the good times.  When they return.  If they return.

Business owners hate uncertainty.  Because, unlike Uncle Sam, they can’t print money.  So they have to be very careful with what they have.  To survive things like recessions.  Depressions.  And Dodd-Frank.

In these Tough Economic Times, it is the People that are Suffering, not Rich Liberals

‘More taxes, more regulations and more uncertainty’ is the mantra of the Obama administration.  And, of course, more spending.  Always more spending.  Is it any surprise the economy is not responding well to Obama’s policies?

There is no way businesses will grow in this environment.  Or create jobs.  And without new jobs the economy will never recover.  People understand this.  That’s why Democrats are losing elections.  Even in New York.  It’s a repudiation of Obama.  And the liberal Democrat agenda.

For though the mainstream media has been a loyal propaganda outlet for the liberal elite, the people aren’t buying it anymore.  For in these tough economic times, it is the people that are suffering.  Because of Obama’s policies.  While rich liberal elitists are living well everywhere.  And continue to fly on their private jets.  While the common people will be paying Obama’s new aviation fees.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Government and Unions can Take a Bad Situation and Make it Worse

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 27th, 2010

If you Think TSA is Dysfunctional and Unpopular Now, Wait Until it Unionizes

Question:  How do you make a bad situation worse?  Simple.  Add more government.  Or a union.  And if you really want to make things worse, add a government union.

The TSA is not very popular these days.  What with their nude imaging leering and their groping of our naughty bits.  They say it’s for our security.  But it feels more like we’re living in a police state.  But at least we can fire those who cross the line and enjoy these sexual assaults a little too much.  Well, for now, at least (see How to Make Air Travel More Infuriating by John Fund posted on 11/26/2010 on The Wall Street Journal).

But if you think TSA is dysfunctional and unpopular now, wait until it unionizes. This month, the Federal Labor Relations Authority ruled that 50,000 TSA personnel will be allowed to vote on whether or not to join a union with full collective bargaining rights…

Imagine if every change in procedures had to be cleared with union shop stewards. While it is not easy to fire TSA personnel now, just think how difficult it will be to remove bad employees if they are covered by union job protection agreements.

I think I see something questionable in your groin, ma’am.  By the power invested in me, I will need to take a closer look.  We have no female agents available, so I will have to insert my man-hands into your panties and feel around in the name of national security.  But you can trust me.  I work for the TSA.  And if you have a problem with this, tough.  I’m union protected.

If You’ve been Sexually Assaulted, it’s Best that You don’t Wear Pantyliners During TSA Security Screening

Sure, I’m being silly.  I mean, what could be suspicious in a woman’s panties (see Sanitary Towel Prompts TSA To Grope Sexual Assault Victim by Steve Watson posted on 11/25/2010 on Prisonplanet.com)?

I recently traveled via air, and was subjected to that new scanning device. “No problem,” I thought. I was wearing jeans and a linen tanktop, bra, panties, and one camouflage pantyliner.

No doubt common for women to wear bras and panties.  And pantyliners.  Should be no big deal.

These new scans are so horrible that if you are wearing something unusual (like a piece of cloth on your panties) then you will be subjected to a search where a woman repeatedly has to check your “groin” while another woman watches on….

Well, I guess in the name of security we must make some women uncomfortable.  What’s the worst that can happen?  A mild case of embarrassment?

But what ultimately happened is that I was subjected to search so invasive that I was left crying and dealing with memories that I thought had been dealt with years ago of prior sexual assaults.

Oh.  It can be that much worse.  We can traumatize a woman by invoking memories of a sexual assault.  Maybe we should revisit TSA screening procedures.  Come up with something that won’t traumatize people.  Maybe look for bombers instead of just bombs.  Use psychological behavior to narrow down the number of invasive bodily searches.  You know, as long as the collective bargaining agreement doesn’t object, of course.

Doctors to Save Medicare by being Screwed by Government

All right, we know what a train wreck the TSA is.  Surely there are things that government does well, aren’t there?  Well, let’s take a look at a big government program.  Medicare.  The government is cutting Medicare payments to doctors.  The program’s spending is so out of control that these cuts are pretty steep.  How steep?  Enough to make doctors drop Medicare patients (see Doctors say Medicare cuts force painful decision about elderly patients by N.C. Aizenman posted 11/26/2010 on The Washington Post).

Doctors across the country describe similar decisions, complaining that they’ve been forced to shift away from Medicare toward higher-paying, privately insured or self-paying patients in response to years of penny-pinching by Congress.

Not only that, but the system is forcing doctors into specialties, depleting the ranks of the primary-care doctors.

On average, primary-care doctors make about $190,000 a year, kidney specialists $300,000, and radiologists close to $500,000, figures that reflect the income doctors receive from both Medicare and non-Medicare patients. The disparity has prompted concern that Medicare is contributing to a growing shortage of primary doctors.

But can you blame them for going into specialties?  Being a doctor is hard.  All that schooling.  Long hours during residency.  And they’re saving lives.  For which they get paid Bupkis.  Shouldn’t we pay them well after they go through all that hell?

“The argument that doctors literally can’t afford to feed their kids [if they take Medicare’s rates] is absurd,” said [Robert] Berenson [a Commissioner of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent congressional agency]. “It’s just that doctors have gotten used to a certain income and lifestyle.”

Easy for a government bureaucrat to say.  But look at the life of a doctor.

But, “the whole system would need to change. … I graduated medical school $100,000 in debt. I worked 110 hours a week during my residency for $30,000 a year and sacrificed all through my 20s. And even now, you’re still seeing people all day, with meetings and paperwork at night, on top of the emotional side of worrying when the patients you care for aren’t doing well. This is life-and-death stuff. And I feel like that should be compensated.”

This doctor failed to mention the lawyers constantly nipping at the heels of doctors.  And malpractice insurance ain’t cheap.

Doctors are Paid too Much?!?  Have you seen what Members of Congress Pay Themselves?

All right, let’s take a closer look at some of these doctors’ critics.  Members of Congress pay themselves pretty damn well.  And they don’t save lives.  Or work hard.  They get a lot of time off.  Lots of travel.  Lots of perks.  We can describe doctors as angels of mercy.  We describe a lot of these politicians, though, as scum of the earth.   And look at their salaries (see Boehner under fire: First cut should be lawmakers’ salaries by Jordy Yager posted on 11/5/2010 on The Hill).

The base pay for House and Senate lawmakers is $174,000, while majority and minority leaders each make $193,400 per year.

A run of the mill member of Congress makes almost as much as a doctor.  Considering what little a member of Congress does for that paycheck, who out there can say this is fair?

Unions and Government

The problem with unions and government?  They make life for the average Joe that much harder.  They protect their own.  And force others to pay for their elevated lifestyles.  And they abuse their power.  Always have.  And always will.  At least nothing in history has suggested otherwise.   

It sure gives you a warm fuzzy when you think about Obamacare coming down the pike, doesn’t it?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Happy Thanksgiving (Once we Pass through the TSA, of course)

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 25th, 2010

When You want to Hire the Best

The TSA and their nude imaging and handsy pat-downs are big news this holiday season.  But it’s all for our own good.  To make air travel safer.  Nay, to make all Americans safer. 

So when you travel this holiday season, rest comfortably knowing that America’s best are standing on the last line of defense before you board that aircraft. 

We know this because of the selective recruiting program used by the TSA.  They choose only the best of the best for their intensive training program.  Because our safety is serious business.

I don’t know what that training program is.  But I know where it starts.  On a pizza box (see TSA using pizza boxes to recruit new workers by Ed O’Keefe posted 7/14/2010 on The Washington Post).

“A Career Where X-Ray Vision and Federal Benefits Come Standard,” reads a TSA ad appearing on pizza boxes across the Washington region.

“Washington Reagan National Airport and Washington-Dulles International Airport are now hiring Transportation Security Officers,” the ad said. “See yourself in a vital role for Homeland Security. Be part of a dynamic security team protecting airports and skies as you proudly secure your future.”

But isn’t that limiting your reach for the best of the best?  I mean, what about the ones that don’t eat pizza?

The boxed ad campaign was developed last year in an effort to reach a broader applicant pool, according to TSA spokesman Greg Soule. The agency routinely uses ad space on Metro trains, at gas stations and in newspapers or buys ad time during movie previews.

I can remember the days when recruiters came to college campuses.  But you know the kind of weirdoes you can find there.  No.  It’s better to advertise on a pizza box. 

Besides, if they’re eating a pizza, chances are someone delivered that pizza.  That means they know how to read (a menu).  And can operate sensitive electronic equipment (a telephone).  And who says the TSA isn’t brilliant?

I wonder if this is how the bad guys recruit suicide terrorist bombers.

Be Thankful for our Military.  And Family.

While we suffer the indignities of the TSA this holiday season, take a moment to think about those who can’t.  And thank them.  Our men and women serving in the armed services away from home.  In harm’s way.  Keeping the fight away from our borders.  Making America safe.  So safe that the only one violating us these days is our own TSA.

Please do what you can for those serving in our military.  And their families.  They’re sacrificing so much for us.  Show them how much we appreciate them.  And how anxious we are for them to rejoin their families.  So they can enjoy what we are enjoying this holiday season.  Family.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Big Government is Bankrupting and Oppressing Us

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 21st, 2010

Rich Democrats Profit from Big Government

Do you know what the problem with the idle rich is?  They sometimes use their idle time to think (see Millionaires to Obama: Tax us by Rachel Rose Hartman posted 11/19/2010 on Yahoo! News blog The Ticket).

More than 40 of the nation’s millionaires have joined Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength to ask President Obama to discontinue the tax breaks established for them during the Bush administration, as Salon reports.

And who are these millionaires?

The group includes many big-time Democratic donors such as Gail Furman, trial lawyer Guy Saperstein and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream (pictured). The list remains open to millionaires who want to sign on.

One thing we’ve learned from government.  The rich never pay their fair share of taxes.  Neither will these Democrat supporters.  I mean, if you’re so patriotic and loyal then just give your money to the government without the tax law forcing you.  Like J.P. Morgan did during the Panic of 1907.  (He used his own wealth to help shore up the banking system during a liquidity crisis).  But they don’t.  Why?  (That’s not a rhetorical ‘why’.  I would really love to hear them answer that question.)

But the key here is that they’re Democrat supporters.  Supporters of Big Government.  Who either profit from government (by preventing any tort reform so lawyers can continue to enrich themselves with frivolous lawsuits brought against corporate America (News Flash:  McDonald’s hot coffee is hot)).  Or are a bunch of rich coots that get off on telling other people how to live.

A Bankrupt City Pleads for Churches, Schools and a Hospital to Help Pay their Union Costs

And speaking of charitable contributions to the government, here’s a city government asking for just that (see Debt Rising, a City Seeks Donations in Michigan by Nick Bunkley posted 11/19/2010 on The New York Times). 

A Michigan city is pleading with churches, schools and a hospital for donations to help cover its staggering budget deficit.

Gail Furman, Guy Saperstein and Ben Cohen ought to throw some of their wealth over to Mount Clemens.  They could feel patriotic and loyal.  And the city could really use their help.  For they’ve done everything they can already.

[The Mount Clemens mayor] said the city has already drastically cut its expenses, having disbanded the police department six years ago, but still faces a $960,000 deficit that is projected to reach $1.5 million next year.

It’s always the police and fire departments that get chopped first.  Not the real things bankrupting the city.  Which, interestingly, they note (probably unintentionally) in the last paragraph.

The city asked its retirees to increase their health insurance deductibles, [the mayor] said, and 8 or 10 did so or switched to their spouse’s plan, saving $192,000.

It’s the same thing that’s bankrupting cities in all of ‘blue’ America.  Fat union payrolls and fat union benefits for city employees.  But they get rid of cops and fire fighters first because it’s a good scare tactic that usually works at the polls when trying to renew or increase a millage.

High Union Pay and Benefits do not Make NYC’s Trains any Safer

But we have to provide those fat pay and fat benefits to attract quality people to these jobs.  Don’t we?  You decide.  Here’s yet another example of what we get for these high pay and benefits (see Subway Signal Inspections Found to Be Falsified by Michael M. Grynbaum posted 11/19/2010 on The New York Times).

Safety workers at New York City Transit falsified thousands of inspections of the track signals that direct trains in the subway system, deeming the signals safe even though those inspections had never taken place, according to an investigation by the inspector general of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Train tracks are broken down into ‘blocks’.  These signals are green when a block is empty.  They’re red when a train is in that block.  These block signals are what keep trains from crashing into each other.  So they’re kind of important.  For safety.

Real railroad personnel would never do this.  They take their work too seriously and have far too much pride to endanger people on their tracks.  But unionized city workers are another story.  It’s not about the love of railroading.  But living better than other people. 

Is this only an isolated incident?

It is not the first time that safety workers in the subway have been found to have falsified such inspections. A nearly identical situation was revealed by the inspector general in 2000.

Apparently not.

The TSA:  Submit to Our Awesome Powers or We Will Destroy You

So government employees are bankrupting our nation with their fat pay and fat benefits.  And they’re endangering our lives with their poor work ethic.  Can it get worse?  Yes.  If we give them unfettered power over us (see $11,000 fine, arrest possible for some who refuse airport scans and pat downs by John Lantigua, Palm Beach Post, posted 11/20/2010 on the Sun Sentinel). 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.

Welcome to airport security.  By entering our line you forfeit all Fourth Amendment rights.  Please remove your shoes, your belts and lift up your dresses and drop your panties.  It’s all in the name of national security.  Yeah, it’s good to be an ineffective bloated government bureaucracy.  Power to the state, baby.  The state rules!

No wonder the Nazis went from state socialism to maniacal oppressive dictatorship.  It’s a rush for the corrupt in power.  No doubt that if some TSA gropers are brought up on criminal charges for ‘crossing the line’ they will follow suit.  I can hear them now.  “I was just following orders.”

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.  And Brings Down Superpowers

Those rich Democrat millionaires got it wrong.  We shouldn’t be giving government more money.  Or more power.  That wasn’t the formula we used to become a superpower.  But it is the formula that has brought down every superpower to date.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The TSA’s Obsession with our Genitals Borders on the Ridiculous and Threatens our Security

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 20th, 2010

You don’t Touch a Stripper’s Genitals because it’s Wrong and Could Spread Infectious Disease

When I was a younger man I visited a strip bar or two.  And one thing about young men when they consume vast amounts of alcohol, they get handsy.  They’ll do things that can get the men with the thick necks over to you and bounce you out before you know what’s happening.

Back then (and probably now), you looked but didn’t touch.  Mostly.  Sometimes you could touch.  But there were limits.  Butt cheeks.  Some boob.  But no naughty bits.  Well, maybe some naughty bits.  Some strippers would let you bury your face in their breasts while you did the motorboat.  But you kept your mouth shut.  Because some other guy might have just been where you are now.  And you don’t want to swap spit with strange men. 

Some rules were a little more lax than others.  Depending how slow the night was and how drunk your stripper was.  But one thing you didn’t do was make genital contact.  If the guys with the thick necks caught you doing that, they’d ask you to leave.  And I don’t mean in a polite way.

Why?  Strippers could spread some nasty diseases that way.  One stripper with Chlamydia could infect a lot of men who could in turn infect a lot of women (wives, girlfriends, one-night stands, etc.).  That’s why bouncers will throw you out.  Because genital contact in a strip bar is like a flashing neon sign that says, “Shut us Down.”

Don’t Put that Gloved Hand Down my Pants.  I don’t Know Where it’s Been.

So genital contact with strangers is not a clean thing to do.  Infectious disease-wise.  Even strip bars that have nude or semi-nude women dancing in dark rooms with loud music systems and smoke affects will police any genital contact with extreme prejudice.  Because strip bars are responsible.  Unlike the TSA (see Woman says her Lambert security screening was sexual assault posted 11/18/2010 on KMOV St. Louis).

Moroney explains “Her gloved hands touched my breasts…went between them. Then she went into the top of my slacks, inserted her hands between my underwear and my skin… then put her hands up on outside of slacks, and patted my genitals.”

The TSA wears gloves.  Because they don’t want to catch anything when they run their fingers through our naughty bits.  But the question that begs to be asked is this: are they changing those gloves between searches?  I mean, how do we know where that gloved hand has been?  Looks like catching a cold on an airplane may be the least of our health worries when flying now.

Water Boarding an Enemy Combatant is Wrong but Hitting a Lady in the Vagina is Okay?

You don’t dare touch a stripper’s genitals.   Or do this (see Enhanced pat down leaves Grand Rapids airline passenger in tears posted 11/18/2010 on WZZM 13 Grand Rapids).

“The female officer ran her hand up the inside of my leg to my groin and she did it so hard and so rough she lifted me off my heels,” she says. “I think I yelped. I was in pain for about an hour afterwards. It just felt excessive and unnecessary.”

You do this in a strip bar and not only will they bounce you, but the guys with thick necks may take you out back.  For a good ‘talking to’.  It’s one thing for a drunken guy to cop a feel, but it’s another to hit a lady in the vagina.  That just ain’t right.    At least the 3 terrorists we water boarded were caught trying to kill Americans.

Profiling isn’t Racism if it’s Anecdotal

A lot of people are asking if we’re any safer from all of this genital groping.  Well, no, we’re not.  But we’re being politically correct.  And our government apparently feels that is more important than our security.  But the people are ready for some politically incorrect profiling (i.e., stereotyping).  Hey, if we can laugh about it in the movies, we ought to be able to handle it in real life when our lives are at stake (see Don’t touch my junk by Charles Krauthammer posted 11/19/2010 on The Washington Post).

In “Up in the Air,” that ironic take on the cramped freneticism of airport life, George Clooney explains why he always follows Asians in the security line:

“They pack light, travel efficiently, and they got a thing for slip-on shoes, God love ’em.”

“That’s racist!”

“I’m like my mother. I stereotype. It’s faster.”

If you haven’t seen the movie, Clooney’s character clocks more air miles than most people do in a lifetime.  The point being that observational experience may NOT be stereotyping.  It may just be anecdotal.

That riff is a crowd-pleaser because everyone knows that the entire apparatus of the security line is a national homage to political correctness. Nowhere do more people meekly acquiesce to more useless inconvenience and needless indignity for less purpose. Wizened seniors strain to untie their shoes; beltless salesmen struggle comically to hold up their pants; 3-year-olds scream while being searched insanely for explosives – when everyone, everyone, knows that none of these people is a threat to anyone.

The ultimate idiocy is the full-body screening of the pilot. The pilot doesn’t need a bomb or box cutter to bring down a plane. All he has to do is drive it into the water, like the EgyptAir pilot who crashed his plane off Nantucket while intoning “I rely on God,” killing all on board.

If you want to stop terrorists, we should try to stop people as well as bombs.  But not all people.  That would be grossly inefficient and divert resources.  We need to observe the behavior of those who are similar to those who have actually carried out terrorist attacks. 

We should treat them like people returning from Canada into the United States.  Talk to them.  Observe their body language when they answer.  Listen to the sound of their voice.  Are they breathing rapidly?  Sweating?  Avoiding direct eye contact?

We need to ask them questions.  Start general and get specific.  Is the person you’re visiting married?  What’s his wife’s name?  What color is her hair?  Their children names and ages?  Where do they shop for groceries? 

We need to ask questions based on their previous answers.  If they say they’re visiting friends from college and are going to the ‘big game’, ask some questions about the team that’s playing.  Or the college.  Or the city.  If this person is up to no good, a good questioning will out him.

During WWII, we caught a lot of Germans wearing American uniforms.  They spoke clean English.  No hint of an accent.  But they didn’t know American slang.   Or who won the World Series.

The TSA and their Advanced Body-Imaging Systems are no Match for a Determined Suicide Terrorist

With the tightening of Security, the bad guys are resorting to more and more suicide attacks.  This requires less sophisticated bombs and timers/detonators.  And a suicide bomber can hide a bomb where no one or nothing can find it.  Up the rectum (see Convergence: The Challenge of Aviation Security by Scott Stewart posted 9/16/2009 on Stratfor).

One of the most recent suicide attacks was the Aug. 28 attempt by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to assassinate Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. In that attack, a suicide operative smuggled an assembled IED containing approximately one pound of high explosives from Yemen to Saudi Arabia concealed in his rectum. While in a meeting with Mohammed, the bomber placed a telephone call and the device hidden inside him detonated.

In an environment where militant operational planning has shifted toward concealed IED components, this concept of smuggling components such as explosive mixtures inside of an operative poses a daunting challenge to security personnel — especially if the components are non-metallic. It is one thing to find a quantity of C-4 explosives hidden inside a laptop that is sent through an X-ray machine; it is quite another to find that same piece of C-4 hidden inside someone’s body. Even advanced body-imaging systems like the newer backscatter and millimeter wave systems being used to screen travelers for weapons are not capable of picking up explosives hidden inside a person’s body. Depending on the explosive compounds used and the care taken in handling them, this method of concealment can also present serious challenges to explosive residue detectors and canine explosive detection teams. Of course, this vulnerability has always existed, but it is now highlighted by the new tactical reality. Agencies charged with airline security are going to be forced to address it just as they were previously forced to address shoe bombs and liquid explosives.

Advanced body-imaging systems such as backscatter and millimeter wave systems?  Why, these are the imaging systems that produce the nude images that have infuriated the flying public.  The very machines that they say are imperative to our safety.  But what good are they if they won’t detect a bomb in a rectum?  For that matter, what good is an aggressive pat down that won’t detect a bomb in a rectum?  You know what would probably give this guy away, though?  His behavior (see the same Stratfor link).

A successful attack requires operatives not only to be dedicated enough to initiate a suicide device without getting cold feet; they must also possess the nerve to calmly proceed through airport security checkpoints without alerting officers that they are up to something sinister. This set of tradecraft skills is referred to as demeanor, and while remaining calm under pressure and behaving normal may sound simple in theory, practicing good demeanor under the extreme pressure of a suicide operation is very difficult. Demeanor has proven to be the Achilles’ heel of several terror plots, and it is not something that militant groups have spent a great deal of time teaching their operatives. Because of this, it is frequently easier to spot demeanor mistakes than it is to find well-hidden explosives.

In the end, it is impossible to keep all contraband off aircraft. Even in prison systems, where there is a far lower volume of people to screen and searches are far more invasive, corrections officials have not been able to prevent contraband from being smuggled into the system. Narcotics, cell phones and weapons do make their way through prison screening points. Like the prison example, efforts to smuggle contraband aboard aircraft can be aided by placing people inside the airline or airport staff or via bribery. These techniques are frequently used to smuggle narcotics on board aircraft.

Obviously, efforts to improve technical methods to locate IED components must not be abandoned, but the existing vulnerabilities in airport screening systems demonstrate that emphasis also needs to be placed on finding the bomber and not merely on finding the bomb. Finding the bomber will require placing a greater reliance on other methods such as checking names, conducting interviews and assigning trained security officers to watch for abnormal behavior and suspicious demeanor. It also means that the often overlooked human elements of airport security, including situational awareness, observation and intuition, need to be emphasized now more than ever.

Profiling will work.  And has worked.  The Israelis use it.  And they should know a thing or two about keeping bombers off of airplanes.  From the ticket purchase, to the security line to the boarding gate, someone should be asking questions and observing.  And only those they flag should we pull aside for enhanced security screening.  And then and only then, should we violate their naughty bits

It’s Better to Offend a Few than Sexually Batter Everyone

Sexually battering our women and children may seem like tough safety precautions.  But it’s humiliating.  Unclean.  And most important of all, ineffective.  It reminds me of a MAD Magazine cartoon I read long ago as a child. 

A banker was explaining their impenetrable vault to a prospective depositor.  It had every possible advanced security feature you could imagine.  Then the prospective depositor asked what the unplugged electrical cord lying on the floor outside the vault was for.  The banker cleared his voice and said meekly that it was the plug for the super-secure vault.  And that someone must have tripped over the cord and pulled it from the outlet.  But to assuage any doubts the customer had, he assured him that they normally secured that plug to the outlet with a piece of scotch tape.

And this is what the TSA has given us.  A super expensive, complex and invasive security program that some guy with a bomb up his pooper can easily defeat.  Instead of studying behavior, the TSA plays with our genitals.  And tries not to offend people who ‘look’ similar to past terrorists.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The New Airport Security is a Pervert’s Paradise

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 17th, 2010

Poorly Paid Perverts Enjoyed the ‘Perks’ of the Job

You ever work as security guard?  I have.  There are many types that work as guards.  College students (like me) using the time to study.  Retirees making some extra scratch for a hobby (I once worked with an old fisherman that spent his whole shift tying flies).  Ex-military who are usually armed (who do more of the serious/hardcore security).  Wannabe cops (who are for the most part good guards and advance in the company).  The unskilled.  The unemployable.  And perverts.

The unskilled and unemployable get some of the worst assignments.  Poorly paid, they sit in a booth or in their car in some of the worst neighborhoods.  They’re sort of like untrained militia.  Those who hire them hope for just one phone call to the cops before they break and run.

Perverts like to work where they can watch the pretty young ladies on a security camera system.  Or peek at them in the bathroom through a strategically placed hole in a ceiling tile.  Or use their keys to enter their offices where they can snoop through their desks during the night shift.  Or sit at a low desk with the sign-in log so they could look down their blouses when the ladies bend down to sign in.  And, of course, they always stash some porn in the stack of magazines in the bottom desk drawer. 

At First it was Just Some Naked Feet, a Flash of Thigh and a Little Butt Crack

Of course, things are different today.  A lot of women are guards now.  Pornographic magazines are a big no-no.  There are more security cameras making it harder to snoop.  And leering at women is right out.  It’s hard to be naughty these days.  So what is a pervert to do?  Why, work at the TSA.

Before 9/11, airport security guards were low-paid, unskilled, rent-a-cops.  They stood at the walk-through metal detectors.  Waved a wand over you if you beeped.  And on occasion rifled through a lady’s underwear packed in her suitcase.  But that all changed after 9/11.

Well, sort of.  The people didn’t change.  They just got snappy new uniforms and a fatter paycheck.  And did pretty much the same thing.  Stood at the walk-through metal detectors.  And waved their magic wands.  But if you had a foot fetish, things were looking up.  Especially if you liked to watch lovely ladies in short skirts and low-rise jeans contort, squat and bend over to put their shoes back on.  But things were going to get even better for the perverts.

Working in a Pervert’s Paradise

Now seeing naked pictures are part of the job.  But not to worry, concerned traveler.  Only TSA personnel will see those pictures (see TSA Chief Defends New Patdown Procedure by Scott Mayerowitz posted 11/16/2010 by ABC News).

The government has reassured the flying public time and time again that any naked images of them at airport checkpoints would be destroyed immediately.

And if you suffer from modesty, or fear radiation, you can opt out of the full body scans that produce these naked pictures. 

Passengers worried that their nude photos may end up on the Internet (or concerned about the radiation from the scanners) can opt to bypass the machines. But those travelers then must undergo a more-intrusive search, including the new patdown procedure in which a same-gender TSA agent touches the inside of passengers’ inner thighs and women’s breasts.

Can a pervert still enjoy a same sex pat-down?  Well, think about it.  Are perverts ladies men?  Or do attractive women typically reject these guys?  And, if so, what would these rejected guys really enjoy?  Why, watching a fellow TSA agent violate and humiliate an attractive woman with a public breast rub and public crotch grope, of course.

That new patdown alone has generated controversy as passengers, and even some pilots, have equated it with sexual assault. Pilot unions started to advise their members to have the patdown done in private.

So this is the tradeoff.  Sexual assault for everyone that flies.  A veritable pervert’s paradise.  To prevent another terrorist attack.  Which is less likely to happen than getting struck by lightning.  Something’s not right here.  But the BIG question is this; are we any safer?

The Israelis Profiled and Studied Behavior – They didn’t Peek through Women’s Clothes

It’s hard to make the case that we are.  The nude imaging and rough pat downs wouldn’t have found the underwear bomb last Christmas in Detroit.  What stopped that?  Alert passengers who saw a person of apparent Middle-East descent acting peculiarly.  You see, there is no such thing as political correctness on a plane with a credible threat.

So what’s the answer?  Well, terrorist hate us because we support Israel.  And there’s only one group of people they hate more than Americans.  Israelis.  And they’re constantly trying to kill them.  Yet their planes are pretty safe.  Apparently, the Israelis are doing something right.  And Security experts say we should be doing what the Israelis are doing (see Amid airport anger, GOP takes aim at screening by Byron York posted 11/15/2010 on the Washington Examiner).

For example, many security experts have urged TSA to adopt techniques, used with great success by the Israeli airline El Al, in which passengers are observed, profiled, and most importantly, questioned before boarding planes. So TSA created a program known as SPOT — Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques. It began hiring what it called behavior detection officers, who would be trained to notice passengers who acted suspiciously. TSA now employs about 3,000 behavior detection officers, stationed at about 160 airports across the country.

Good.  We’re following the Israeli lead.  So how is that working?

“It’s not an Israeli model, it’s a TSA, screwed-up model,” says [John] Mica [the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure].  “It should actually be the person who’s looking at the ticket and talking to the individual. Instead, they’ve hired people to stand around and observe, which is a bastardization of what should be done.”

Leave it to government to take a good thing and screw it up.  And how bad is the TSA version of the Israeli method?

In a May 2010 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Mica noted that the GAO “discovered that since the program’s inception, at least 17 known terrorists … have flown on 24 different occasions, passing through security at eight SPOT airports.” One of those known terrorists was Faisal Shahzad, who made it past SPOT monitors onto a Dubai-bound plane at New York’s JFK International Airport not long after trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square. Federal agents nabbed him just before departure.

The problem with the TSA is the TSA.  Granted, the SPOT detection officers were probably better trained than the typical TSA rent-a-cop, but they’re still part of the same bureaucracy.  They may train but they have little hands-on experience.  There just aren’t that many terrorists trying to get on our airplanes with detectable bombs.  And the few that do are able to slip through.  Because our TSA has so little hands-on experience.

People like to point to the military as a proof that government can do something well.  But who is really training those soldiers?  Combat veterans.  Who have hands-on experience fighting bad guys.  That’s what we need.  Professionals with experience.  Not TSA rent-a-cops.  We need to get serious with security.  Like the Israelis have.

Just Because President Obama’s Wife and Daughters aren’t Sexually Assaulted when They Fly Doesn’t Mean that Yours Shouldn’t

The problem with terrorism is that you have to worry about what doesn’t happen.  It’s not the successful attacks that count.  It’s the fear of what may happen.  This terror is so great that it has made us sexually assault our women and children whenever they fly.  But based on the experts, this sexual assault isn’t making us any safer.  So why do it?  Well, part of the reason is that those making us go through it don’t have to go through it themselves (see Since the TSA molested my family, why doesn’t Obama volunteer to subject his family to the same security procedures? by Mark Hemingway posted 11/16/2010 on the Washington Examiner).

The President and his family — preferably with DHS Secretary Janet “The system worked” Napolitano — should show up at Dulles or Reagan airport on a weekday with a camera crew in tow, as airport pat downs are typically done in full view of hundreds of travelers. All of America will to see the TSA handling the President’s crown jewels. Then a rubber-gloved federal agent will run his hands all over his wife and daughter’s privates while he watches. Then I want him to turn to the camera and tell all of America that this is no big deal and we should all be good citizens and comply with the necessary security procedures.

Can you see the TSA publicly embarrassing President Obama?  Or see him watching the TSA grope his wife and children?  Of course not.  The ruling elite will always exempt themselves from such barbaric treatment.  It’s okay for us.  But not for the royal family.    

When George W. Bush was tapping phone calls of suspected foreign terrorists, the liberal left went ballistic and called for his impeachment.  Ditto for the water boarding of all those three terrorists.  That was just beyond the pale.  But taking nude images or feeling up every man, woman and child who flies is okay.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,