The Democrats War on Women makes Women Dissatisfied with their Vaginas

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Some people with big noses get nose jobs.  To reduce the size of their noses.  Pretty much the first thing you look at when you see someone with a big schnoz.  So one can understand the anxiety some people may suffer after a life of undo attention on their proboscis.  And a lifetime being called ‘big nose’.

Women are especially prone to getting plastic surgery to correct what they view as defects.  A tummy tuck so they look slimmer and more appealing.  Face lifts so they look younger and more appealing.  Boob jobs.  For a bigger rack to give the guys something to look at.  And to look more appealing.  In fact, anything that men see a lot they want to use surgery to make it look more appealing.  Even things that take some disrobing to see (see Designer vaginas are ruining our idea of what women’s bodies should look like, doctors warn by Anna Hodgekiss posted 12/31/2013 on the Daily Mail).

Women are getting increasingly distorted ideas of what their genitalia should look like, with many wrongly thinking their bodies are ‘abnormal’.

New research has found that those who looked at ‘designer vaginas’ were more more [sic] likely to consider them ‘normal’ and ‘ideal’ when later comparing them to unaltered genitalia…

The number of labiaplasties performed by the NHS has risen five-fold since 2001, according to the study’s Australian authors.

The surgery involves reducing the size of a woman’s labia minora to make them more symmetrical and smaller than the labia majora…

Generally, there are no health reasons to have the surgery – it is only for the sake of appearance. So the researchers wanted to know what drives women’s perceptions of what looks good…

‘This is due to airbrushing, lack of exposure to normal women’s genitals, greater genital visibility due to Brazilian and genital waxing and the general taboo around discussing genitals and genital appearance…’

Sarah Calabrese, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, added: ‘[These findings are] especially disconcerting given that for many women, the narrow and unrealistic range of vulvas presented in mainstream U.S. pornography may be the only images that they see,’ she said.

‘The vulva is unlike most other body parts, which remain visible even when clothed; while a woman can look around and see the size and shape of other women’s waists, breasts, and so on, they don’t have the same opportunity to view other women’s vulvas and therefore are less likely to have a realistic sense of the natural diversity of vulvas in the female population.’

The Democrats/liberals keep saying Republicans/conservatives have a war on women.  Because they don’t want to hand out free birth control.  And provide access to abortion.  While Democrats do everything within their power to make it easier for a woman to go out and have a lot of casual sex.  Apparently liberals everywhere are, too.  Turning women into such sexual objects that they watch pornography to see how men want a vagina to look.  And then have surgery to get their vagina to look like what would please a connoisseur of pornography.  Yet it’s Republicans/conservatives that have a war on women.

But the bigger question is why are women trying to make every part of their body so appealing?  Well, who finds women appealing?  That’s right.  Men.  And why do women look their best for men?  To attract a guy.  And it’s just not for a hookup (i.e., casual sex).  For there probably isn’t a guy who would refuse to have sex with a woman after getting her naked regardless of what her vagina looked like.  For if a guy is looking at a woman’s vagina he’s probably thinking it’s the most beautiful thing he’s ever seen.  Because he’s about to have sex.  And nothing short of an earthquake or a tornado is going to get him to say anything that might spoil the mood.

No.  Women try to attract men to find Mr. Right.  For despite the Democrat war on women with their free birth control and access to abortion to keep them free and single women want to get married.  They don’t want to live alone.  Just being sexual objects for men to enjoy.  So desperate to find Mr. Right they will go to any length to make their looks ideal.  Based on pornographic images.  Something else Democrats fight to protect.  For there probably isn’t a pornographer out there that votes Republican.  Yet it’s Republicans/conservatives that have a war on women.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT199: “If Republicans want women barefoot and pregnant then Democrats want women with their legs spread and barren.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 6th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

1950s Society did not Depict their Women Sexually

Democrats bemoan that the Republicans want to take America back to the 1950s.  Where women didn’t work.  But stayed at home and raised families.  Where they ware barefoot and pregnant.  With three jobs in the household.  A cook in the kitchen.  A maid in the house.  And a whore in the bedroom.  Always serving the needs of others.  But never themselves.  While their husbands go out and build a career.  And enjoy life.  Leaving their wives behind to suffer from the disease of pregnancy over and over again.  And the oppression of motherhood.

Of course the Republicans don’t quite see it that way.  They don’t see pregnancy as a disease.  Or raising a family as oppression.  They see a loving household as a good thing.  Where they can raise their children to be good citizens.  To respect one another.  And to treat women like ladies.  To respect them.  And protect their dignity.  To be chivalrous.  To hold a door for them.  To offer their seat to them on a crowded bus.  To think of them as human beings.  And not just as vessels holding their sexual parts.  Sexual objects that are only useful when a man wants to have a good time.

Democrats disparage those old television shows like Father Knows Best, The Donna Reed Show, Leave it to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, etc.  Because they treated their women horribly.  There was no hooking up or casual sex at all.  For 1950s society did not depict their women sexually.  They dressed and acted conservatively.  No bare midriffs, lower back tattoos, plunging necklines or exposed thongs for men to leer at.  Men were polite to women.  And boys were polite to girls.  Unless they had cooties.  Even then if they were mean parents, teachers and older siblings admonished them for that.  Oh yeah, it was sheer hell for women back then.

Democrats have Liberated Women to be Pure Sex Objects for Men everywhere to Enjoy

Then came the Sixties.  And the Sexual Revolution.  The counterculture (i.e., young Democrats) railed against treating women with respect.  For they have vaginas.  And they should use them as often as they darn well pleased.  Not to just get married and raise a family.  To one man for the rest of their life.  The heck with that.  They should use their sexual parts to please more than just one man.  So instead of only one man enjoying her vagina a woman should allow many men to enjoy her vagina.  It was the dawn of the women’s movement.  Feminism.  And never again would American society treat women like prim and proper ladies.  At least not with feminists around.

As the conservatives tried to maintain a lady’s honor the young liberal Democrats fought censorship.  For the right to show naked women with their legs spread in pornographic magazines.  To show them fully naked in the movies.  In simulated sex acts.  And performing real sex acts in hardcore pornographic movies.  Yes, Democrats have finally liberated women to be pure sex objects for men everywhere to enjoy.  Of course Democrats called this liberating.  While dirty old (and young) men just say, “Thank you!”

Seedy strip clubs became high-scale gentlemen’s clubs.  Where women stripped down to a thong and rubbed herself on a man’s lap.  Or did more in the VIP/champagne rooms.  Yes, this was liberating for women.  Sexy women were everywhere.  Half-naked women sold things on television.  Boys could peak at naked women spreading their legs in magazines at the local drug store.  Most R-rated movies contained gratuitous nude scenes.  And when the VCR came out pornography really took off.  Women became slabs of meat on camera.  Making hundreds of titles.  Putting a lot of miles on their vaginas.  And other openings.

Democrats are doing everything within their Power to Nationalize a Woman’s Vagina

So who do the kings of the sexual exploitation of women vote for?  These businesses all vote Democrat.  Because they don’t want to roll time back to the 1950s when women weren’t sexual objects.  For they profit handsomely on the liberation of women.  While bombarding men with their pornographic images.  So that when they see a woman today they’re not thinking about what she’s thinking.  They’re thinking about what she looks like naked.  And how much they would like to do things with her that they do in those pornographic films.  Sometimes forcing the issue with alcohol and drugs.  Bringing terms like ‘date-rape’ and ‘roofie’ into the lexicon.  For the American left has so sexualized women that more and more men can think of nothing else but hooking up.

The Democrats have long championed birth control and abortion.  To remove any consequences from a sexually active lifestyle.  Encouraging women to offer their vaginas to as many men as possible.  Which they have.  Kicking off an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases.  And not because women’s husbands were seeing prostitutes at the local saloon like they were before Prohibition.  Bringing diseases home to their wives.  Which helped kick off the Prohibition movement as men drank away their paychecks and did bad things.  Like being abusive to their wives and giving them syphilis and other STDs. No.  Today women are out there hooking up for casual sex.  Bringing STDs into their lives.  Because Democrats have taught them all their lives that they should be having casual sex.  Instead of getting married.  Because that would be a living hell.

Perhaps the greatest political trick ever done was how Democrats got women to choose to be sexual objects.  Getting them to believe that casual sex with many different partners is liberating.   And not objectifying.  The next greatest political trick ever done was how these same Democrats convinced women that it’s the Republicans that have a war on women.  Not the Democrats.  Who are doing everything within their power to nationalize a woman’s vagina.  So feminist men (who are mostly Democrat) can enjoy a lady’s charms without having to marry her.  Like they did in the God-awful 1950s.  Where Republican men kept their women barefoot and pregnant.  Well, if Republicans want women barefoot and pregnant then Democrats want women with their legs spread and their wombs barren.  Yet it’s the Republicans who have a war on women.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Left’s War on Women brought about the Vicious Cycle of Thong Use and Bacterial Vaginosis

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 20th, 2013

Week in Review

The left say the Republicans have a war on women.  Because they want to restrict abortion.  Make women pay for their own birth control.  And other heinous anti-women behavior.  Such as encouraging them to marry instead of having casual sex with multiple partners.  The left says Republicans want to turn women into the housewives of the Fifties.   Having sex only with one man and getting pregnant when they do.  Instead of a woman exploring her sexuality.  And enjoying it.  That’s how uptight Republicans are.

Of course, the left’s idea of a liberated woman probably pleases men more than women.  Once upon a time men married one woman and either stayed with her or had ‘discrete’ affairs on the side.  Then the Sexual Revolution came along and women were just giving it away.  Short shorts.  Miniskirts.  Going braless.  Men just loved the women’s movement.  As women no longer wore shape-hiding dresses but revealing clothing showing all of their curves.  Then the ladies took it up a notch.  Bare midriffs.  Low rise jeans.  And thongs.  Allowing women to wear tight clinging dresses without showing any visible panty lines.  Or showing some thong riding out the back of their low-rise jeans for the men to see just to be super sexy.

Of course when we ask why women want to wear tight and clinging dresses or low-rise jeans there is but one answer.  They want men to look at them.  To see them as a sexual object.  It has to be.  For they sure aren’t doing it for the comfort.  Or the hygiene (see Why Your Thong May Be Bad For Your Health by Ellie Krupnick & Rebecca Adams posted 10/15/2013 on The Huffington Post).

Many thongs, particularly the sexy lacy kinds, are made of non-breathable materials, as opposed to cotton.  “We should all always be wearing all cotton underwear,” Dr. Ghofrany advises…”When patients say [to me], ‘But the crotch is cotton,’ my response is that the layer outside the crotch is not, thus making the cotton less breathable and thus allowing more moisture to be trapped and more possible imbalance leading to infections.”

Plus, even if the entire garment is cotton, the skinny shape creates an inherent risk. “The patient’s vulva is much more ‘exposed’ to whatever they’re wearing,” Dr. Ghofrany explains, “and given the increase in leggings and ‘skinny’ jeans, all of which have Lycra, Spandex, etc., there again is trapped moisture.”

Lastly, the thin band of material at the crotch tends to move around, possibly transferring bacteria from one spot to another. As Dr. Rabin tells, us, “If you have a little bacteria — E. coli is the most common bacteria in the colon — in the back part of the fabric and you’re physically active, that material may move. All it has to do is move an inch or two and it’s next to the vagina or urethra. That thong may be depositing colonic bacteria into your vagina or urethra.”  Yikes.

Infections can occur when the balance of the vaginal environment, including the moisture levels from vaginal secretions, is thrown off, says Dr. Ghofrany. The most common? Yeast infections and bacterial infections, mainly bacterial vaginosis. The extra bacteria usually manifests with increased discharge, which leads to what Dr. Ghofrany calls the “vicious cycle of thong use”: the increase in discharge leads to an increased use of panty liners, which leads to even more trapped moisture, which leads to more infections and more discharge.

Thongs also carry the risk of external irritation. “I see more patients with skin tags on their vulva and near their rectum, in the exact distribution of the thongs,” Dr. Ghofrany tells us. “I sometimes will be mid-pap and ask a patient, ‘So you wear thongs a lot?’ And their response is always ‘Ya! How can you tell?’ And it’s because of the skin tags, small ‘piles’ of soft tissue that occur from the skin being constantly rubbed in the same spot. These happen traditionally at bra lines and neck lines, and now increasingly at thong lines!”

Infections?  Bacteria?  E. coli?  Bacterial vaginosis?  Vicious cycle of thong use?  Skin tags?  Piles?  That’s a pretty steep price to pay to be sexy for men.  But in our highly sexualized world where the left has sexualized women this is how women feel good.  By being sexy.  To, of course, please men.  Yet it is the right that has a war on women.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Liberals have a Distinct Advantage when it comes to Embarrassing Nude Selfies in Cyberspace

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2013

Week in Review

A lot of people in their teens and twenties may not be thinking about running for public office.  A senate or a presidential campaign may be the last thing on their mind as they are partying on some college campus.  Finally away from their parents.  Able to do the things they couldn’t do with their parents around.  Like get drunk.  And have some grownup fun.  Even taking naughty pictures of themselves and sending them to their fellah.  Never thinking that it would end up a permanent fixture on the Internet.  Besides, how could that ever come back to haunt them (see When Will We Get a Female Pol’s Crotch Shot? by Lizzie Crocker posted 8/1/2013 on The Daily Beast)?

Leave it to Gloria Steinem to raise the million-dollar question out of all the media gold that has been spun out of Anthony Weiner’s latest sexting scandal:

“I mean, just imagine if there were a woman who had photographed her pubic area and sent it out on the phone,” Steinem recently told The Cut. “Would she be a candidate..?”

Let’s face it: any female politician whose vagina was splashed all over the Web would have a hard time weathering the derision that image would inevitably generate.

The sad thing is a woman’s political orientation will determine the derision that would follow.  Not to mention the shame and embarrassment.  The media coverage would portray the Democrat as a victim.  While portraying the Republican as a hypocrite.  Family values?  Yeah, right.  While late night television would have a field day.  “I’m sorry, I didn’t recognize you with your clothes covering your vagina.”

Kids do stupid things in their youth.  In the old days these were things done and forgotten.  Where mothers today may blush as they remember something they did in their youth.  But that’s where it ends.  Because there was no permanent record of it floating in cyberspace.  Unlike today.  Where if these women don’t go on to a career in porn those pictures will come back and haunt them.  Forever.  Perhaps even destroying their political aspirations.  If those aspirations include joining the Republican Party.

It leaves one to wonder about the left’s objectification of women.  Their turning women into sexual objects for men to enjoy.  Perhaps they want these young women to upload embarrassing nude photos of themselves.  So they can store them on some server farm.  Just in case they decide to go into politics.  On the wrong side.  At which time they can dig these pictures up.  And throw them back out onto the Internet.  So they can use them to destroy the political opposition.  For they know that can’t win in the arena of ideas.  No.  The way they win is with vicious personal attacks on the opposition so that they rue the day they ever entered the political area.  And nothing could help them more than some nude selfies from their youth.

And the saddest thing of all is that it is the conservative cause that will suffer the most.  An adulterous affair with an intern young enough to be his daughter in the Oval Office?   What business is that of ours?  What people do in their private lives has nothing to do with their ability to expertly execute the duties of their office.  A crotch shot from a drunken teen on spring break?  Obviously a sign of a deep character flaw.  And clearly someone who has no right to talk about family values.  The exhibitionist hypocrite.

You know this is what will happen.  And why some of America’s best and brightest may never run for public office.  Because of something they did when they were a young silly liberal that’s come back to bite them in the ass when they’ve grown up into a mature responsible conservative adult.  For conservatives will have shame for something so embarrassing in their past.  Unlike some liberals.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,