We Are The TSA, And We Approve This Message

You may also like...

19 Responses

  1. Total War Against Terror. I like it. It about sums up the underlying point.

  2. Brandon says:

    That fucking blog is just sick. They even apparently pay people to comment on their blog entries, or just have a bot that posts "I didn't know this, thank you so much!" on every entry under different names.

  3. doug says:

    oh my, very funny and sadly, true.

  4. Randall says:

    How long until the Trouser Search Authority comes after Ken?

  5. Al says:

    The real question is how much did they pay for that bot and can I underbid them?

  6. Paul says:

    With respect, did you read the bill, or just the one excerpt? Rogers' bill also: reduces inspection of low-risk passengers and places more weight on interviews, reduces screening of the Armed Services, **makes searches of children done by parents, not TSA**, and disables image retention on the intrusive scanning devices. In whole, it seems like a decent bill aimed at reducing the intrusiveness of TSA.

  7. Ken says:

    No respect necessary here, Paul. Yes, the bill has some admirable goals (which, I suspect, will not survive), but they are limited by various forms of discretion reposed in the TSA/DHS (see, e.g., "Children shall not be subject to random pat-down screenings, unless the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) determines that threat conditions warrant such screenings.") It appears to be more show than substance to me.

  8. Scott Jacobs says:

    Hey Paul…

    Remember when they first started using those machines, and we were promised that they wouldn't store any images?

    Good to see you're fine with them telling you they lied to your fucking face.

    And the rest?

    I refuse to applaud the bill nor the TSA for changing things to what they fucking should have been in the first damn place, and at the same time attempting to usurp my first amendment right to use their "branding" to mock the unholy fuck out of them.

  9. doug says:

    if the bill gives discretion, then its meaningless. this passage obviously violates the Constitution, but legally challenging it will take lots of money and time. Dont think for a moment the TSA or any other Federal Agency will just roll over.

  10. Paul says:

    Hey, Scott,

    I despise the TSA and everything it does. Nor did I support or endorse the "branding", just pointing out that this bill also tries to reign in this out of control agency a bit. If you prefer the all-or-nothing approach to doing that and won't be satisfied with increments, then you'll likely get the nothing or worse. I'd rather limit them a bit now than continue to give them more power, because doing so sets the stage to limit them more in future bills.

  11. Paul says:

    Ken,

    I think it's a start — my reading of the child searches is that the general rule is for parents to do it and only changes if the "threat level" is high. Yes, we should get rid of the whole damn agency, but that's unlikely, so I'd rather see some limits put in place. I just don't like to see the whole bill ignored because of one component that's out of line. Or a congressman who's clearly trying to limit TSA a bit colored as the opposite for that one component.

  12. Brandon says:

    The bill basically says that a TSA agent won't pat down kids anymore unless the agent finds them attractive. It also reveals that most of the justifications for the TSA screening in the first place, such as the "Terrorists will just use people who don't look dangerous" screed, were complete bullshit.

  13. doug says:

    Dear Paul, you are obviously more optimistic then we generally are here. The bill does nothing and changes virtually nothing. It merely attempts to placate the general public. there is nothing to prevent the sec to keep the threat levels high for extended periods of time. it does not reign in anything. Further, the bill attempts to infringe on the Constitution be limiting speech, in particular, political speech. so, one one hand, tsa's power is not curbed, but in fact, grown more powerful in that you ca be arrested/fined for using TSA and or its logo in the speech.

  14. Stan says:

    WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?

  15. mojo says:

    You forgot the other motto:
    "On the ground, NOW!"

  16. G Thompson says:

    Thankfully not being a citizen of the Unified Sheeple of America I can still denigrate the "Totally Stupid Asshats" who are the TSA in whatever way I deem fit. Be it wearing a tshirt, a funky hat, carrying a banner, or creating a non usa registered web site that makes absolute fun of the crybabies that are the TSA.

    Thankfully I also have no plans whatsoever to fly to a USA controlled airport any time in the future. Though I will probably have to keep my eye out for the rendition squad coming my way soon.

  17. Tam says:

    G Thompson,

    I see you've found a way around your country's Beijing-like internet censorship. Good on ya, mate! (Or is Popehat not on the blacklist yet?)

  18. Rauðbjorn says:

    Well played Ken, well played. It's about time for the Terminally Stupid Agency to be shut down and for the Thousands Standing Around to go get real jobs.