The Volokh Conspiracy Turned Into A TSA Porn Site So Gradually, I Hardly Noticed

Print This Post

You may also like...

57 Responses

  1. Panther Modern says:

    I like how your writing is well-endowed with sexual euphemisms.

  2. Chris Berez says:

    Really excellent post, Ken. You nail every single aspect that's wrong and false about that piece. Even a couple hours now after having read it, I'm still trying to figure out if we're being trolled or if this ended up on VC by mistake, or what. This is the kind of insulting and so-stunningly-stupid-it's laughable sloppy garbage I'd expect to appear at a place like World Net Daily, not a blog I've had so much tremendous respect and value for for so long.

    You know, if Baker had written from the perspective of saying, "Look, I'm really scared of terrorists" that at least I could understand. I think it's childish and wrong-headed. But it's a common, emotional argument. But his post is so deeply insulting and disgusting, it actually manages to reach a level that's every bit as vile and incompetent as the TSA itself. And that's not something easily done.

  3. Katie says:

    I read it three times trying to see it for satire, and failing.

  4. Adam says:

    Out of all the bloggers that post there regularly, Baker is by far the most egregiously awful. Except for maybe Todd Zywicki.

  5. Bill says:

    It's not funny or witty. It's not clever.It's dismissive of all the valid arguments that people make. And maybe I'm being sensitive, but it seems like he's claiming all critics are just emotional nutcases and tinfoil hate wearing wackjobs. Jones is nutjob and his followers are consistently heavy on stupid, but being on PrisonPlanet doesn't necessarily mean it's invalid. Screw him though – my taxes go to fund that nonsense just like his – People unhappy about how their tax dollars are being wasted have just as much legitimacy and right to vent their opinions as people Baker agrees with. And who's more out on the fringe, people who dislike the TSA or people who are big supporters of it?

  6. Eric T. says:

    I think that would have been a great piece if it was written on April 1st.

  7. Grandy says:

    I think the Onion is trying way too hard things when it decides to make it's site look exactly like another one as part of the joke.

    Also,

    "Sbarro Express"

    Can't get this phrase out of my head.

  8. drobviousso says:

    I always assumed Stewart Baker was another pen name for FrankJ. It is the only thing that makes sense.

  9. RogerX says:

    Excellent use of a Simpsons reference, Ken!

  10. Jess says:

    “I can’t explain the women who hate TSA with a passion,”

    That’s because Mr. Baker lacks two important attributes (1) empathy and (2) the understanding that women have the right to say NO.

  11. Charles Collom says:

    Successful national security troll is successful.

  12. Matthew Cline says:

    From one of the comments to the VC article:

    Why do the women I repeatedly hit on keep calling me a jerk? It's so hard to understand. I've spent a lot of time puzzling over it, and finally figured it out: they're intimidated by my sexiness.

    Heheheh.

  13. Dan Weber says:

    I guess rape victims who get flashbacks when they are penetrated during patdowns should just get over it.

  14. Bear says:

    "That’s because Mr. Baker lacks two important attributes…"

    Three.

    3 things.

    – 3) A penis.

    Unless you count the one the TSA slipped him.

    (Sorry, Ken. It was called for.)

  15. Pete says:

    Note that Stewart Baker spent 3½ years at the Department of Homeland Security as its first Assistant Secretary for Policy. This sexually frustrated nut job is not just a defender of the TSA, but an author of TSA policy:

    http://www.steptoe.com/professionals-762.html

  16. Jess says:

    @Bear – I actually forgot the third one (3) a brain – but maybe he keeps that in his uhm – - – -well your #3

    @Dan Weber. While I can’t speak for all women, I suspect many have a different sense of body privacy and security than men. Women in general have been taught from an early age to be modest and to not let strangers grope or stare at their naked bodies. Moreover, a vast number of women have been victims of some sort of sexual assault and have subsequently struggled to regain that sense that they and only they have control over their own bodies. Being forced to “expose” oneself via one of the TSA’s imaging machines or alternatively be groped by a stranger is something these women should not have to deal with, especially as the situation doesn’t warrant that level of invasion of privacy. TSOs attempting levity doesn’t change those facts. I would say the hate is well deserved. But hey I guess in the name of security if you have to break a few eggs (I mean women) to make an omelet . . . . . .

    Seriously though, this guy calls himself a privacy skeptic? Isn’t that just another definition for liberty skeptic. Mr. Baker fails to grasp the violation of our privacy is a violation to our freedom for the simple reason that he just doesn't care. He doesn't care because he's not paid to care. After all, the first order for the scanners was placed before the underwear bomber incident.

  17. doug says:

    i have felt for awhile that the VC has started to jump the shark. this is bit of the proof.

  18. Jack B. says:

    You gotta admit, "privacy skeptic and national security conservative" sounds a bit more sexy and mysterious than "bootlicking authoritarian".

    Seriously though, it's good to see you and Scott Greenfield picking up on this. I've read a few of Baker's articles and always assumed he was taking a contrary position (what with all his "Privacy Lobby" scaremongering) just to generate comments on his articles. This latest piece belongs at The Onion. Shit, I'll bet the TSA's Blogger Bob was embarrassed by the article.

  19. Mercury says:

    I can't help but notice that this story is relevant to my comment on the previous post about the right-to-record case.

    When everything or almost everything is illegal in some way, shape or form and/or when the government has been granted or has assumed authority to harass people arbitrarily on any number of available legal pretexts, it doesn't really matter if you're recording the event on your Iphone or not. It's not like anyone who is likely to care doesn't already know that the fourth amendment is history.

    I know the TSA is Bush's big government shitshow but Obama is hardly shy about the gestapo like powers of his endless and heavily armed federal agencies. If women think that this is the only area in which they will feel outraged and violated by the government as their Life Of Julia progresses, they're fooling themselves.

  20. Thad says:

    @RogerX: "Excellent use of a Simpsons reference, Ken!"

    Myself, I find that no TSA discussion is complete without "This rock keeps tigers away."

  21. Jess says:

    A quote from Mr. Baker

    Notwithstanding the venom of the TSA-haters, polls show that most Americans support TSA, including the decision to use whole body scanners. But for a very vocal minority opposing the agency isn’t political. It’s personal.

    Ah yes the polls. Let’s have a closer look at the reality behind those mysterious ”polls” Mr. Baker and the TSA are so fond of quoting. There are more than 786 million scheduled passengers traveling within the US on airlines in on an annual basis. The TSA and other advocates often cite a survey conducted by CBS that was conducted across a random sample of 1,137 adults nationwide. Other polls cited by the TSA also include less than 2,000 respondents. That’s less than .000145% of annual air travelers. As someone with a Masters in Statistics it infuriates me no end when the TSA or people like Mr. Baker refer to polls or surveys stating the majority of Americans agree with TSA policies and procedures when the surveys are based on a total number of respondents so infinitesimally insignificant to the total population being surveyed that the analysis is statistically irrelevant. To then state that these surveys show the majority of American’s support the TSA is nothing more than a nicely polished piece of bull-shit. It’s still bull-shit.

    On the Volokh site a survey has been kicked off as a result of the Baker post. Even this new survey has more respondents than the ones cited by Mr. Baker or the TSA. Interestingly enough they don’t show that Americans are in support of the TSA. http://poll.pollhost.com/T3JpbktlcnIzCTEzNTM5MjA1OTEJRUVFRUVFCTAwMDAwMAlBcmlhbAlBc3NvcnRlZAkw/

    So in case it wasn’t evident before. Yes, I’m a woman and yes I hate the TSA.

  22. Because nothing says "Alpha Male" like the eager willingness to bend over and spread 'em….

  23. clare says:

    No, i'm fine with this. I want Baker sexcapades to continue. It really spices up Volokh, and kinda makes it trashy. It's time to transform the blog into a sex advice celebrity gossip hub. Just the nudge they needed.

  24. Amy Alkon says:

    also consider the privacy of the individuals involved.

    Why should a government worker, searching a citizen's body sans probable cause, be allowed to remain anonymous?

    This is not the same thing as posting the name of some citizen who works at Cinnabon and exposing them for their fat keister.

    But, yet, they have been allowed to remain anonymous by wearing their badges upside down, though this should not be the case, per an email I found from TSA Press Rep Nico Melendez, who is now refusing to give me answers and telling me to shove it (up some complaint phone line).

    If complaint phone lines did anything, or complaint lines in general, after 17,000 complaints about the TSA, something would have changed. All that seems to have changed is that the TSA thugs now touch my hair and inside my turtleneck as if I could have a big charge of C4 in there.

    Absolutely stellar post, Ken.

  25. John_Barleycorn says:

    The author, Stewart Baker, use to work for Michael Chertoff and is self admittedly euphoric when he is able to match Chertoff's performance and technique in the TSA line.

    Enough said perhaps.

    Let's just hope he does not share any cuckold fantasies with us in any future attempts he may undertake to rationalize the TSA.

  26. twency says:

    To VC's partial credit, take a look through the comments on that post. Not a lot of love for Baker's bizarre sexual fantasy, nor his underlying point (such as it is).

  27. markm says:

    "But, yet, they have been allowed to remain anonymous by wearing their badges upside down,"

    They do that so they can read their own badge in case they forget their name.

  28. Dan Weber says:

    Jess, I hope my sarcasm came through. I was feeling a bit enraged and tried several different posts before just using that one.

    I know a woman who thought TSA was fine, and then was penetrated by a TSA worker. She became distraught and revealed she was a rape survivor, something I don't think anyone else knew. It was very hard to read Baker's post while thinking of her.

    (She declined pursuing it legally.)

  29. Jess says:

    @Dan – nah I figured it was sarcasm :-)

    Also I love how he says "But for a very vocal minority opposing the agency isn’t political. It’s personal."

    To which I say if someone is groping my boobs you damn well better believe it's personal.

  30. Dustin says:

    It's been over ten years since 9/11 and we're still living like this. I thought it might be temporary.

    If only we could have a choice! Airlines with security theater and airlines without. Lock the cockpit up secure so hijackers can't crash planes into skyscrapers (this is not going to happen anyway, as passengers would rise up now… especially the bolder ones on the flights sans theater).

    If they are doing this for me, let me choose.

    This is just crazy talk in a world where sanity is a $16 trillion debt.

  31. Matt says:

    Ken,

    I agree wholeheartedly with your post except for the characterization of this instinctive obedience of the government as "canine". Canine obedience is based in large part on something analogous to trust and/or love and is not limitless. I think the behavior of Baker and his ilk is better characterized as bovine: unthinking, derived from a herd mentality, and purchased in many cases with cheap feed and devices capable of administering electric shocks.

  32. Tarrou says:

    Jess and Dan,

    While I appreciate and agree with your ultimate point, I resist strongly the suggestion that the argument we should be making is that women, due to their special physical neuroses and frailties, are specially victimized by the TSA and should be the basis of opposition. The TSA is a comedic and bizarre threat to convenience, decency and personal freedom, and I'm all for tossing them all. But conjuring a chauvinists-and-feminists victimization defense for that opposition actually discredits it a bit, in my view. I get that Baker kind of started it with his palm-sweat article, but best not to get sucked into it. The TSA is bad for everyone, trying to champion the "rights" of 51% of the population not to be groped and harassed isn't tweaking my shorts in the right direction (see, I can be inappropriately insinuative as well!).

  33. TJIC says:

    @Dustin:

    > It's been over ten years since 9/11 and we're still living like this. I thought it might be temporary.

    Like Orwell said: picture a gloved government hand, feeling up your junk. Forever.

  34. Jenny says:

    "Because nothing says "Alpha Male" like the eager willingness to bend over and spread 'em…."
    Perfectly said. :)

    I might find it cute when a dog rolls over and shows his belly, but I'm hardly set all "sparks and chills" over his "smooth confidence."

    That's just the sad little man part though.
    Then comes the creepy perviness.

    Since VC seems to have deleted my comment…

    Stewart Baker claims he "can't explain" why women might hate with a passion being forced to choose between being run through a naked imaging scanner or being felt up in public.

    Stewart Baker then proceeds to detail his sexual fantasy of showing off his "competence" in a TSA line.

    Stewart Baker is either terminally self-absorbed, or he is a disgusting camp kapo, getting some sick power rush watching innocents assaulted in public by a third party.

    Stewart Baker is a loathsome cad who owes America an apology.

    And VC should leave his Stewart Baker's vomit up indefinitely, so that any woman that crosses his path can see what kind of perv they're dealing with.

  35. Stephen Checkoway says:

    Jess,

    Your comments about statistics intrigued me. Performing a small, simple random sample (SRS) of the population is how polling works. That the fraction of those polled compared to the total population isn't an issue. (Consider black and white pebbles and you want to determine what percentage of of them are black. If there are a million pebbles and you sample 1000 of them and find 900 are black, that's pretty good evidence that about 90% of the million are black. If there are a billion pebbles and you sample 1000 and find 900 are black, that's still pretty good evidence that about 90% of the billion are black.)

    The real issue is that most of the public doesn't fly often and so have little experience with the TSA. If you poll frequent fliers, you find quite a different reaction to polling the nation as a whole.

    Orin's poll of Volokh readers tells you very little about how the public feels, actually. It tells you that those who self-selected to respond to the poll feel a particular way. This is not a simple random sample and the fact that it has more respondents doesn't improve its accuracy.

    I have no problem believing that the majority of the public supports the TSA. I have no problem believing that readers of a (mostly) libertarian blog don't support the TSA. I have no problem believing that frequent fliers don't support the TSA. All of these beliefs are based on polls (although the frequent flyers polled are also self-selected and so don't provide all that much evidence that frequent flyers don't support the TSA, I just find that a reasonable hypothesis; but that's my own bias showing).

    So again, the issue isn't the number polled, it's who was polled.

  36. Gal says:

    "If there are a billion pebbles and you sample 1000 and find 900 are black, that's still pretty good evidence that about 90% of the billion are black."

    No, not really.

    The rest of your comments have merit though. The unofficial poll on VC is no more scientific than the polls cited by Baker. That doesn't mean those have any merit to them, though.

  37. "Every once in a while, though, everything goes right, and I feel great. I'm Michael Chertoff, baby, all smooth competence, no wasted motions, no hesitation, no gaps on the conveyor belt."

    I get that feeling all the time when moving through a TSA line. But n my case, it's because I have Asperger's Syndrome, not because I'm a insecure emotional eunuch posing as a "national security conservative."

  38. Jess says:

    @Stephen,

    the issue isn't the number polled, it's who was polled.

    Yes, very much in part but the number polled is also relevant. I agree with you that "who" has been polled is significant to the analysis. I hope have I implied that Orin’s poll is not any more accurate than the others referred to by the TSA – that was in fact the point. If the sample being polled isn’t statistically representative of the whole, the analysis is flawed. In the case of the TSA they are relying on polls of individuals who don’t fly, who don’t fly often, and/or who are not necessarily representative of the majority who make up the 700+ million annual travelers within the USA.

  39. Personanongrata says:

    The petty-tyrants that staff the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have screened billions of flying-folk since it's freedom destroying inception in 2001 and have not uncovered a single "terrorist" at it's check points.

    Meanwhile less than 10% of all domestic air-cargo (which is stowed/flown within passenger aircraft holds) is screened for contraband.

    TSA's security theater serves as a Pavlovian conditioning program which indoctrinates US citizens into accepting more/greater government intrusions into their lives under the guise of providing safety.

  40. Dan Weber says:

    and have not uncovered a single "terrorist" at it's check points.

    This doesn't necessarily mean they aren't working. A metal detector, for example, doesn't need to find any guns to stop people from trying to bring guns through the security checkpoint.

    The whole org is pretty much a joke, but sometimes a failure to catch anyone is because you have successfully dissuaded anyone from trying.

  41. StrangeOne says:

    Dan that's kind of the point of that post. You may be able to say the security checkpoints serve as a deterrent, but you would have to ignore the TSA's luggage policy to do so.

    Anyone can check a bag for their flight and then simply leave the airport, yet no bombs have been found and no planes have been blown up. The truth is that there is simply no one out there making any attempt to blow up domestic flights. Hijacking planes is dead, the cockpits all lock and no plane full of passengers would let an attempted hijacker do anything anyways. Blowing them up is about all that's really left, and TSA policy is neither crafted to stop that nor is there any indication that such a threat is even real.

  42. Gal says:

    Does the Blawg 100 thing have rules as to which blogs are eligible? because it seems to me that if you allow an argument that goes "my theory only applies to men, and I'm going to go ahead and claim the issue only involves men, because that's how it seems to me" should be disqualified. From anything and everything.

  43. Kevin says:

    "privacy skeptic" – I've never heard that phrase before. I find it disgusting that these two words, each of which I have great love for when taken individually, have been combined to form something ugly and thuggish. Is he saying that he's skeptical of the the motivations of people who value privacy? Or skeptical of the notion of privacy itself?

    And really, isn't openly calling yourself a "privacy skeptic" on a blog, published under your own name, kind of like saying "dox me please"?

  44. Rob says:

    I've been saying for a long time now that Stewart Baker is Volkh's token statist. That's the only possible reason I can think of that they allow him to stick around.

    This doesn't necessarily mean they aren't working. A metal detector, for example, doesn't need to find any guns to stop people from trying to bring guns through the security checkpoint.

    Except we know, objectively, that they aren't working. People bring dangerous objects onto a plane in their carry-on luggage all the time, often accidentally. Adam Savage from Mythbusters made it onto a plane with two twelve inch long razor blades. Several gunbloggers that I read daily have posted about accidentally bringing on knives and magazines that they had forgotten to remove from their bags. Studies that have tested TSA's ability to detect weapons in luggage have shown that they have up to a 70% failure rate.

    In addition, we've had several terrorists actually smuggle bombs aboard and attempt to detonate them, for instance, Richard Reid and the underpants bomber. None of them were stopped by the TSA, but they WERE successfully stopped by passengers.

    The evidence has shown that the TSA is worthless.

  45. JR says:

    The last time I traveled in an airplane was in 1992. I am not likely to ever need to fly again. When I was 12, I survived a car accident that killed my mother, one of my brothers, and many others. Since then I have had an irrational, yet very strong, fear of driving. I believe I can understand how difficult it is to live with such trauma, but I have never let it stop me from riding as a passenger. Nor would I demand that the DOT set up a checkpoint at each major intersection.
    I have been following this debate with a morbid fascination. Reading the articles, blogs, and comments has expended my understanding of constitutional rights and what I perceive to be the failings of a society to react in a rational and measured fashion.
    Below is a list condensing everything I have learned while scouring the internet. I deliberately avoided justifications, and attempted to remove as much personal bias as I could. I also spent several hours trying to find something positive to say about the TSA. As far as I can tell, even their own blogger Bob didn't have anything that could have been found by a simple bag check, metal detector, and moderately intelligent employee.

    FOR
    -The TSA provides jobs for thousands of people who would otherwise have to pass a more rigorous background check, possess a certain level of education, or have training in a skill before being a viable candidate for employment in a position with a similar income.
    -Some people have professed feeling safer with the new procedures and devices in use.

    AGAINST
    -The TSA costs have increased from 700 million in 2001 to 8 billion today. An increase of 1,057%
    -The TSA has not caught a single terrorist.
    -The backscatter imaging systems used by the TSA emit unregulated and potentially harmful radiation.
    -The backscatter imaging systems used by the TSA can be fooled.
    -The backscatter imaging systems used by the TSA sometimes report false positives, resulting in a person being subjected to additional searches.
    -Use of the backscatter immaging systems on persons under 18 years of age constitutes child pornography.
    -Some people have professed feelings of anxiety and shame at being subjected to having a machine expose their body to potentially harmful radiation while displaying it, naked, to others for visual inspection.
    -The pat downs performed by TSA employees do not detect most methods of hiding objects.
    -Performing a pat down according to current procedure constitutes sexual assault, and when performed on a person under 18 years of age, child molestation.
    -Some people have professed feelings ranging from discomfort to terror at being subjected to the enhanced pat downs.
    -Some TSA employees are undertrained and have been found to perform their jobs poorly, if at all.
    -Some TSA employees have been caught in criminal acts including bribery, theft, smuggling, harrassment, sexual assault, as well as violation of constitutional rights (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure).
    -Some TSA employees have criminal backgrounds, giving people cause to question its hiring practices.
    -Some TSA employees are ignorant of TSA policies and procedures.
    At least one TSA employees has been caught trying to manipulate public opinion through the use of semi-anonymous postings on blogs.
    -When a person complains about TSA workers or procedures they can be subjected to additional searches, delayed until they have missed their flight, or told that if they continue to complain they will be arrested.
    -People with medical conditions that prevent them from performing or behaving the same as others may be subjected to more invasive searches, physically restrained, or prevented from boarding the plane.
    -The majority of the baggage is placed on the plane without undergoing inspection.
    -The long lines that form at TSA checkpoints are also targets for terrorists and blowing up an airport is easier and more damaging than blowing up an airplane.

  46. Bruce says:

    @StangeOne – a passenger that fails to board is grounds for halting the flight, finding and removing their checked baggage for international flights and domestic flights in large chunks of the world.

    I think you can do it in the US as every bag passes through some sort of screening but I have no idea if this is a thorough check or just more theatre.

  47. Oatworm says:

    What's kind of funny is that Baker actually makes a pretty good point, if only accidentally – the TSA is clearly designed to condition people to accept capricious, random acts of authority. If you can acually predict how you'll be oppressed, you'll lose fear of that oppression and atart planning around it. By keeping oppression random, capricious, and embarrassing, however, it guarantees fear. It guarantees respect, or something closely approximating it. It keeps people in line, on their toes, always looking over their shoulders, wondering how they can appease you.

    In this context, changing the rules and making everyone feel like an idiot for failing to adhere to the latest pronouncements from the Department of Homeland Security makes a lot of sense – it's a psychological beat down designed to gaslight passengers into submission. Light-heartedly joking with rape victims while they capriciously and publicly jam their latex-covered finger into their personal space, of course, provides the implicit threat of what happens if you refuse to submit.

  48. MathMage says:

    "If there are a billion pebbles and you sample 1000 and find 900 are black, that's still pretty good evidence that about 90% of the billion are black."

    No, not really.

    Yes, really. The 99% confidence interval on that result is a couple percentage points in either direction. (The confidence interval on the actual Gallup poll Baker uses is a good deal larger, because the result is closer to 50%; however, it still gives >95% confidence that the majority of the population is in favor of TSA policy.)

    If you can get a high-quality sample, a miniscule fraction of a large population is enough to reach surprisingly firm conclusions about that population. It's the effort of getting a good sample in real life, and of precisely determining what conclusions the data can provide, that makes rigorous statistical analysis difficult.

    For example, as Stephen Checkoway pointed out, the issue with Baker's use of the polls is not that they're poor indicators of public opinion about the TSA. Rather, it's that public opinion of the TSA is probably a poor indicator of the TSA's actual performance, due to the general public's extremely limited interactions with the TSA. A caveat to that, though, is that opinion on the TSA and recent airline usage both correlate negatively with age, according to the poll; whether the relevant factor is age or airline usage is unclear.

  49. V says:

    The 99% confidence interval on that result is a couple percentage points in either direction.I tried looking up how to decide what a representative sample size is, or why the ratio between population and sample size doesn't matter, and I ran into confidence interval several times.
    What didn't become clear to me, how do you arrive at 99% confidence interval without actually repeating the poll a bunch of times?

  50. @V: The reason that the ratio between population and sample size is (mostly irrelevant) is because of the law of large numbers. Imagine that I flip a coin a million times, and I only tell you the first 100 flips. The first 100 flips will provide a pretty good estimate of how often the coin will come up heads when it is flipped – the million flips will provide an even better estimate, at the cost of a lot more work. If I then flip the coin a billion times, the first 100 flips will still estimate that parameter (how often it comes up heads) just as precisely – the full billion flips will estimate it more precisely than the million, but that doesn't matter. Similarly, random sampling estimates a size-independent parameter (the proportion of the population with a specific response) with a precision related to the sample size, rather than the population size.

    The only exception is that when the sample is a large fraction of the population, the margin of error can become smaller than expected (e.g. if you sample all but one, you're going to get a very good estimate).

  51. MathMage says:

    Following on what Derrick said, another way to think about it is to consider the case of an infinite population. Any finite sample is necessarily an infinitesimal fraction of the population, yet a respectable sample size still allows us to extrapolate with high confidence across the whole population. So plainly sampling a small fraction of a population can still lead to precise estimates.

    Rather than measuring the quality of an estimate by the fraction of the population used to obtain the sample, a better way to approach the situation is to ask, "If the actual value across the whole population was X%, what's the probability that I could obtain a result of [e.g.] (X+5)% across this sample?" The answer shrinks fairly quickly no matter how large the population is.

    This analysis predicts what the results would be if one ran the poll several times–that's a byproduct of predicting what the results are across the whole population. So it's not necessary to actually run the poll several times to obtain a confidence interval. If you DID run the poll several times, you would obtain a more precise result by simply aggregating your data into one large estimate.

  52. Careless says:

    Disappointing that Baker hasn't been removed from the VC's list of bloggers by now. What a disgrace.

  53. SarahW says:

    How did that end up on Volokh? I think TSA is a bad idea on every level, from effectiveness to effect on me to effect on erosion of law, and its effect on a free people. Limits explicitly set out in the bill of rights, and all that has come after in law regarding the requirement for reasonableness of searches, even administrative searches (see the algorithm of intrusiveness vs. effectiveness/necessity described by Sandra Day O'conner) are offended by current TSA searches/methods offend in every respect.

  1. November 28, 2012

    [...] poorer people who deal with that sort of thing every day from the police must feel.Embedded Link The Volokh Conspiracy Turned Into A TSA Porn Site So Gradually, I Hardly Noticed The one thing I take away from Stewart Baker's extremely unsettling extended sexual metaphor [...]

  2. November 28, 2012

    [...] like to offer an enthusiastic hat tip to Popehat for writing the blog post that I had worked on all weekend in my head, but couldn't pull off that incisively. Over the [...]

  3. November 30, 2012

    [...] The Volokh Conspiracy Turned Into A TSA Porn Site So Gradually, I Hardly Noticed [...]