TSA steals food from doctors' infant children

Discuss

93 Responses to “TSA steals food from doctors' infant children”

  1. Takuan says:

    “Now I’ve been roped into this” …. SS uniforms…spanking naked men…. I see.

    Well, there are other sites, but to show the Boing Collective is not without pity: Assume the Position!

  2. manicbassman says:

    come the revolution, they will be the first up against the wall…

  3. noen says:

    Moonbat is a princess? Ya know, that explains a lot.

  4. MOONBAT says:

    Part of that comment was cut off. “Just because you can…” was supposed to be a full paragraph.

    I think the BoingBoing censor has blocked my comments anyway. What she’ll probably do is look through the blocked comments to find one that makes me look bad, and then allow that to appear on the site. I’ve tested this on many other forums, and that’s usually what people in her position do.

  5. Takuan says:

    kinda like “To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar”? ( a great film by the way)

  6. Takuan says:

    moonie; in order to contribute you must sometimes say something new and different from what you said before. Otherwise, please just use ditto marks.

  7. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Ken Hansen (13): Sorry, but you’re dead wrong. I can’t believe you’re still buying the “mix two liquids or gels and it makes an explosion” story. That wasn’t just refuted; it was trounced.

    Making Light had a lot of fun with it during that period — 1, 2 3 4 — but the one you really want is Nothing to hope for but fear itself, which collected a bunch of reliable articles about what a crock that all was.

    As for what amount of baby food sounds “reasonable” to you, I purely don’t care. I’ll take the word of two doctors who are the parents of an infant over you or the TSA any day.

    You do realize that there’s no way the TSA had a rule in place for what to do about two parents who are both doctors and are carrying a lot of baby food, right? The TSA employee who decreed that there had to be a letter from a separate doctor was making it up on the spot.

    Moonbat (27): you’re wrong too. There’s no groupthink going on in this thread. We all think you’re wrong separately and individually.

    Also, you never did explain what wearing Nazi uniforms while spanking naked men has to do with ignorance.

    TheFool (30): That day is already here. I’ve seldom spent twenty dollars to better effect.

    Moonbat again (64), in reply to Antinous (45):

    “Don’t ask anyone here. If they give you any answer, it will be wrong.

    Don’t ask me either. I have no time for you.”

    But if there’s no use talking, and no use listening, what are you doing? You can’t be here for the hunting.

  8. Takuan says:

    Frank was excited about his new rifle, and decided to try bear hunting. He spotted a small brown bear and shot it. There was then a tap on his shoulder, and he turned around to see a big black bear. The black bear said, “That was my cousin, and you have got two choices. Either I maul you to death or we have sex.” After considering briefly Frank decided to accede to the latter alternative. Even though he felt sore for two weeks, Frank soon recovered and vowed revenge. He headed out on another trip where he found the black bear and shot it. There was another tap on his shoulder. This time a huge grizzly bear stood right next to him. The grizzly said, “That was a huge mistake, Frank. That was my cousin and you have got two choices. Either I maul you to death or we have rough sex.” Again, Frank thought it was better to cooperate. Although he survived it would take several months before Frank finally recovered. Outraged he headed back to the woods and he managed to track down the grizzly and shot it. He felt sweet revenge, but then there was a tap on his shoulder. He turned around to find a giant polar bear standing there. The polar bear said, “Admit it Frank, you don’t come here for the hunting, do you?”

  9. Takuan says:

    I’m going to hell, aren’t I?

  10. Antinous says:

    I’m always up for bearsex, but I thought that today’s jokes had to involve crucifixion.

  11. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    I don’t know, but it’s a sin to think that you do.

  12. MOONBAT says:

    #36, TAKUAN

    If I wrote this before, you should be able to provide a quote.

  13. Village Idiot says:

    I say moonbat needs to be put on the no-fly list. And the no-troll list. And the no-sense-of-humor list. And maybe the multiple personalities list too.

    Seriously, how much time do you spend thinking about ways to destroy passenger jets? When will you quit pulling crazy schemes out of wherever it is you pull them from to try to point out how badly we all need to be inspected, searched, x-rayed, scanned, etc.?
    What if, what if, what if… What if someone went all the way through flight school and became a real airline pilot, spending a decade or two getting into the pilot’s seat as a real pilot just so he/she could seize the plane and do whatever they want with it? Has TSA considered that possibility?!?

  14. Takuan says:

    I do not believe you. I think you know what you are doing. I am not interested. Good day.

  15. Antinous says:

    I forgot how cute and bearish he was in that. I’m going to add it to my Netflix queue.

  16. jm says:

    So was this dangerous excess of baby chow carefully destroyed in the interests of public safety, or just added to a booty pile? From the article I’m guessing the latter.

  17. MOONBAT says:

    Ken Hansen (13): Sorry, but you’re dead wrong. I can’t believe you’re still buying the “mix two liquids or gels and it makes an explosion” story. That wasn’t just refuted; it was trounced.

    How about acid strong enough to melt through the floor of a plane; has that been trounced?

    Poisonous vapors, trounced also?

    Moonbat (27): you’re wrong too. There’s no groupthink going on in this thread. We all think you’re wrong separately and individually.

    When you insist on using your own narrow definition of groupthink, despite all indications that the other party is using the word differently, how do you think that makes you look?

    No need to respond. I’ll write it for you: “I know you are, but what am I?”

    But if there’s no use talking, and no use listening, what are you doing? You can’t be here for the hunting.

    Sometimes you quit cold turkey. Sometimes you smoke the rest of the pack, for no other reason than it’s there.

    I transitioned into apathetic semi-trolling several comments ago. Just throwing out bait and seeing which jackass jumps at it. Soon I’ll leave in boredom and disgust.

  18. crysharris says:

    Moonbat #27,34,79
    Moonbat originally got a bit beaten up for making a legitimate comment on the title of this post. The headline is sensationalist and highly subjective. Of course, boingboing, to my knowledge, has no mandate to preserve journalistic integrity or objectivity. So I reject Moonbat’s premise that there’s something wrong with the biased title. However, I totally respect the point he was trying to make.

    Things deteriorate much however, when he claims that readership here in populated by the “unreasonable”. Based on?

    Finally, if an acid is strong enough to eat through airplane steel floors, pouches of babyfood or cans of formula or plastic bottles of formula aren’t going to contain said acid. Also, acid doesn’t look like pureed peas. Also, the acid scenario just sounds silly in this particular story.

  19. Takuan says:

    go on, speak.

  20. Comedian says:

    Next, candy.

  21. Jeff says:

    Isn’t this a perfect example of the kind of psychology that developes when stupid people are given too much power? I’m glad to be able to read this sort of thing here.

  22. angryhippo says:

    Does anyone else get the absurdity of some simian security guard making the determination that a doctors note is needed in order to pass (None Shall Pass!)? What qualifies them to make that call? Do any of these chimps have any medical training?

    Oh, the day is coming where they will ask you when you last urinated- because you could be carrying more than two ounces of liquid in your bladder…

  23. BaS says:

    Well at least there’s a recent post on this sort of topic (Theft, not just being jerks and stealing baby food) in the TSA blog, http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/02/tsa-our-officers-public-and-theft.html#links titled “The TSA, Our Officers, The Public and Theft.” At the end-ish of their post they do say:

    “So what can you do if you feel you have been ripped off?

    First and foremost, file a police report. Most airports have law enforcement in the terminals, many airports could have a police officers respond in minutes.

    Second, file a claim with both TSA and the airline. We analyze this data and if we see a trend at a particular airport, we are in a better position to investigate further.”

    3-5 are just regular common sense in the make sure you have it with you to begin with line of thought.

    But at least the guy responded to some of the comments “Couldn’t agree more with anonymous at 12:31, “the screeners violated the public trust. That is completely unacceptable for a government employee at any level.” That’s what the post is all about. One case of officer theft is one too many and we’re doing our level best to find, fire and aid in the prosectution of any officer that is stealing. Beyond the obvious lack of honesty and abuse of the public trust that has been mentioned, officers stealing sully the reputation of the great majority of the workforce and make their jobs much more difficult.”

  24. Adam Backstrom says:

    Manchest, NH -> Manchester, NH

  25. g.park says:

    Sekuriteh.

    I haz it.

  26. Takuan says:

    already there. By using catheters and multiple agents I have successfully smuggled Pee Bombs through security. To assemble the binary explosive,both must crowd into the washroom and “cross the streams”.

  27. MOONBAT says:

    I see you enjoy sniping, Takuan.

    You can work to eliminate mass ignorance or you can work to enforce it. You have chosen to enforce it.

  28. Takuan says:

    sniping? really?! I look upon it as firmly strapping you down and be-rubber gloved, giving you the stern discipline a naughty, naughty boy needs and craves. Admit it! You love it!

  29. wrathofthekitty says:

    #45

    “The rule says a reasonable amount for the flight, and that’s the basis on which the decision was made.”

    actually, it said “itinerary,” which we all know is far from set in stone when traveling through o’hare in the winter. (i just got home 48 hours late coming from chicago…that was not in my itinerary, but ?fortunately? i can eat airplane “food”)

    but i feel that the real issue at hand is the fact that the TSA confiscated “prunes.” anyone feeding their baby prunes should not only have the said prunes confiscated, but they should also be stripped of all parental rights brought up on charges of child abuse.

  30. Takuan says:

    I like prunes

  31. MOONBAT says:

    #40, ANGRYHIPPO

    Does anyone else get the absurdity of some simian security guard making the determination that a doctors note is needed in order to pass [...] ? What qualifies them to make that call?

    They have no qualifications, which is exactly why they must follow orders.

    The last thing you want is “some simian security guard” making those determinations.

  32. MOONBAT says:

    Takuan, there is a poster like you on every forum. Other users tolerate your nonsense because you enforce the party line. You are the unrepressed id of a hive mind.

  33. Antinous says:

    You are the unrepressed id of a hive mind.

    I have no idea what that means, but if you said it about me, I’d buy you a drink.

  34. Tits McGee says:

    C’mon, #13. I’m pretty sure you’re not going to suffer unduly if you’re stuck in an airport without beer. If you were stuck in an airport with a hungry infant, though, I guarantee you and everyone around you would suffer greatly.

    The question isn’t whether the amount of food and formula they’d packed was excessive for a 2 1/2 hour flight – they packed the extra in case of delays, which strikes me as an entirely reasonable thing to do.

    I wonder, had mom been breastfeeding the baby, would the TSA have required her to pump out a few ounces before boarding the plane? There could be bomb components in that stuff! Mustn’t let her carry on an excessive amount!

  35. MOONBAT says:

    Seriously, how much time do you spend thinking about ways to destroy passenger jets?

    Right. I pointed out the absurdity of your group’s comments, so I must belong to that “other” group (the “crazy” people).

    It couldn’t possibly be that your claims are absurd and you only air them “publically” here because you know they’ll be accepted no matter how baseless.

    What if someone went all the way through flight school and became a real airline pilot, spending a decade or two getting into the pilot’s seat as a real pilot just so he/she could seize the plane and do whatever they want with it? Has TSA considered that possibility?!?

    Yes. That’s why pilots are given background checks and are investigated if they start behaving unusually.

  36. Antinous says:

    I look upon it as firmly strapping you down and be-rubber gloved, giving you the stern discipline a naughty, naughty boy needs and craves.

    Is Moonbat a boy? I thought that you were a girl.

    I see you enjoy sniping, Takuan.

    It’s not sniping. It’s called badinage. Didn’t you get the memo? This is supposed to be fun.

    If you want to complain about confiscation of baby food, fine. Just don’t say they “stole” the food from “infant children.”

    Show me that rule that says that everything written here has to be completely literal and rendered without artistic license. Cory writes novels, not stereo instruction manuals.

  37. Agent 86 says:

    @Antinous

    ID, short for Inner Desire.

    Id, Ego, and the SuperEgo, as in Sigmund Freud.

    He meant it as a insult, but saying that you fulfill the desires of an entire group of people can’t be all bad!

  38. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Moonbat, is Crys Harris your real name?

  39. Antinous says:

    But isn’t the id the most individualistic aspect of the Freudian psyche? How does that square with the hive mind? It’s a compliment no matter how I work it.

  40. Cory Doctorow says:

    Another way of phrasing this:

    Who has a better handle on how much food a baby needs — a government bureaucrat or a medical doctor who is also the baby’s parent?

    Since when does the government have a legitimate role in determining how much food our children need during airport delays?

  41. Xylocopa says:

    How about acid strong enough to melt through the floor of a plane; has that been trounced?

    There is an easier way to make a hole in an airplane’s hull, namely, opening an emergency exit. Eliminating these exits is the only logical conclusion – in fact, I recommend removing all entrances and exits, as they may be used by terrorists to enter and leave the plane while it is on the ground.

  42. Takuan says:

    dats me.

    I see I’ll have to dig up the Red Army uniform for this one.

  43. Tommy says:

    And let’s not forget that all they need to do is find a couple confederates in order to bring in an arbitrarily large amount.

    Which is sadder? TSA or its apologists?

  44. DeWynken says:

    #14…please don’t give them any ideas, they may just start doing that.

    I’m just waiting for the day where someone snaps and beats the shit out of one of these people. Hopefully a good mob reaction will ensue, and the bloody heads of TSA agents will be stuck on pikes at the airports entrance as a warning..

    We can only dare to dream..

  45. Ratbus says:

    #13 I guess you missed the part that explained they brought all of the extra food for possible delays. What if they were stuck on the plane for 12 hours? It happens. It still comes down to expecting these people who are supposed to be protecting us to have a freakin brain and to use it. They seem like a bunch of mall security rejects from what I’ve seen.

  46. MOONBAT says:

    From Ask the Pilot, Salon.com:

    How does one operate the emergency doors on an airplane? Could some crazy person open them in flight?

    Obviously many people don’t pay attention to the flight attendants or read the briefing cards, which explain in detail how to work the doors. You should know how to do this. But in midflight, no, the doors won’t open. That goes for the smaller emergency hatches and the main exits.

    The hatches, usually found over the wings, are restricted by the outward-pushing forces of the pressurized fuselage. Like a drain plug they always open inward, and a person would not be capable of overcoming these forces until the aircraft is depressurized. The larger cabin doors are more complicated. Some operate manually, others mechanically. Secured by a series of locks, they also are subject to outward-acting pressure as in the case of the hatches, and/or sensors that do not allow movement while the plane is pressurized.

    You’ll notice that on the flat, shelf portion of the door — so alluring as a resting spot while waiting for the lav — it often says DO NOT SIT. While I wouldn’t recommend it, you could probably sit there all day jiggling the handle to your heart’s content without causing havoc, though you might break the pressurized seal causing some horrendous noise, or set off a warning light interrupting the captain’s breakfast. The other reason they don’t want you sitting there is to avoid messing with the inflatable escape slide that lives inside the lower door structure.

    Of course, I didn’t specify that acid “strong enough to melt through the floor of a plane” should be used for that purpose. It could just as easily be thrown in a flight attendant’s face or used to cut through the cockpit door.

  47. Jeff says:

    I’m all for ANYthing that will help keep a kid quiet while on a plane. If that means feeding them ten times in 2.5 hours, go for it!

  48. arkizzle says:

    Agent86, Agent86, we have misunderstanding in progress – please attend with due caution..

    Dude, I’ll wager Antinous was just having a sly giggle with ol’ Moonbats there.

  49. bardfinn says:

    #13:
    “There is no medical reason to carry that much food …”

    And you, being a medical doctor, are qualified to make this determination – right?

    You are in full possession of the facts?

    You – as a licensed and educated doctor – don’t mind that an uneducated, unlicensed government employee is making a medical decision, over-riding the medical decision of two fully-qualified and licensed doctors?

    Pardon, please, the fact that I do not lend credence to your opinion, whether you really are a medical doctor or not.

  50. Alexis says:

    Don’t complain about employees doing their jobs.

    No, I’ll complain about employees doing their jobs badly, stupidly wasting effort on over-enthusiastically enforcing vague, pointless regulations about baby food.

  51. sg says:

    #13 ken: “One component that was easy to get by screeners is liquid explosives, so now they limit the amount of liquid a single person can carry on the plan in carry-on baggage.”

    This is a myth. There is no risk from “liquid explosives.”

  52. Village Idiot says:

    I think the BoingBoing censor has blocked my comments anyway. What she’ll probably do is look through the blocked comments to find one that makes me look bad, and then allow that to appear on the site. I’ve tested this on many other forums, and that’s usually what people in her position do.

    Sorry to hear about your descent into paranoia. Hope you get better. Any comment that makes you look bad was (as you admit) written by you, not the censor behind the curtain, so???

    The issue is the validity of liquid threats. The argument that a specific scenario involving liquid explosives was debunked and therefore liquids are not a threat is logically fallacious. Explosives are not the only potential liquid threat.

    Yeah, there will always be liquid threats. Someone might figure out how to smuggle enough water onto an aircraft to drown everyone, or invent some new super-duper-dangerous liquid that no one has heard of yet. Maybe there will be an explosive fabric developed, at which point we’ll all have to fly naked (and thirsty). Or perhaps you could regal us with your vast knowledge of explosives and liquid threats to aircraft and an explanation as to why these gravely moist threats have not yet manifested.

    Pan Am flight 103 was destroyed by one pound of plastic explosives. That amount can be smuggled onto a plane in your butt, or vagina if female, plus it’s quite stable and safe until detonated. Non-lethal contraband frequently gets through security at airports or prisons in that manner (butt-loads of it, hehhehheh), so it’s not security that will make flying safer, removing the desire and motivation to bomb aircraft will, and that’s a much bigger issue connected to all the other geopolitical nonsense going on, that is if we assume terrorism as depicted in the MSM is real and not just a smoke-and-mirrors stage show.

  53. Takuan says:

    Strictly speaking, according to the Declaration of Independence,aren’t TSA workers traitors? I mean, what could a lawyer make of it all?

  54. Antinous says:

    Read Tacitus before you start advocating treason trials. They never go all that well.

  55. Antinous says:

    the BoingBoing censor

    I think that she’s trying to paint you as Diana Moon Glampers.

  56. dainel says:

    The parents “mistakenly believed they were entitled to bring on unlimited quantities, which is not what we say,” Ms. Howe said. “We say you can bring a reasonable amount for your trip, and obviously the officer has some discretion on defining what that would be.”

    You Americans are crazy for putting up with the TSA. Anywhere else but in America or Europe, if you wanted to get on the plane with enough baby food to last a whole week, nobody is going to care.

    The comment here shows that the true purpose of the TSA is to turn people into sheep who will blindly follow instructions from “authority” without question, whether it be reasonable or not. In the rest of the “non-free-world”, we cannot bring knifes, guns, or explosives on the plane, but nobody cares if you wanted to bring 30 bottles of shampoo or 20 bottles of water.

  57. Takuan says:

    Thats why I prefer Tacticus

  58. dainel says:

    I just had a thought. Is there chemical that can make ordinary clothes highly flammable? You soak your clothes in this liquid, then dry it. Once dry, there is no smell. So we hatch a plot to bring down the plane. A 4 person team is to take a flight, wearing their now highly-flammable clothes, carrying bags full of similarly treated clothes onto the plane.

    Once the plane is in the air, our team removes the clothes in the bags and then huddle together, and then light themselves up. Depending on the type of plane, they may situate themselves near the tail or the wings. The sudden, strong flash or fire will raise the temperature in the immediate vicinity high enough that the fuel on board the plane also ignites and bring down the entire plane.

    OK, there are flaws in this plan, but the liquid explosive thing has proven that the plan does not have to be sound to get the TSA to react.

    The expected reaction is that henceforth, passengers will be forbidden from bringing clothes on board, either in their bags, or wearing them. Before boarding planes, all passengers will change into special clothes provided by the TSA. These will have special slits to allow easy inspection to verify that passengers do not sneak in contraband clothes under the TSA provided ones.

  59. Geno Z Heinlein says:

    If you can get past an irrational hatred for all things TSA, you might agree that this is a reasonable solution.

    The only irrational part of this is the TSA being allowed to pretend that what they’re doing is remotely sensible. The TSA, the DHS, the Bush Administration and the scared, stupid people who ceded their civil rights to those agencies have done far more damage to the US than any terrorist could ever do.

    The terrorists destroyed two buildings and killed 2800 people. (And not all of those were actually people; many of them were stockbrokers and lawyers.)

    Corrupt government officials and scared, stupid US citizens destroyed our civil rights, including parents’ ability to feed their children properly.

    Score against US sanity: Terrorists 2802, Government 1,654,487.

  60. Antinous says:

    Aeneas or Aelianus? It’s funny either way. I have to go to the dry cleaners to pick up Caratacus’s uniform, but I’m having a really hard time reading this washing list.

  61. Dutch101 says:

    Yeah, the whole “liquid explosives” thing has pretty much been shown to be BS. Under optimal conditions, someone MIGHT be able to concoct something that was flammable, not explosive mind you, but flammable. I think I’d be more worried about a guy in first class lighting his tiny bottle of scotch on fire.
    TSA is pretty much mall security. A panacea or feelgood for the American public so that the government doesn’t have to, say, actually address issues like a complete failure in foreign intelligence or lack of US standing and perception. Our aviation system is still incredibly vulnerable, and it ain’t from excess baby food.

  62. Takuan says:

    Pratchettius, in the original Latation

  63. ckd says:

    Wait, isn’t it a standard Bush administration talking point that they don’t want universal health care because medical decisions should be made by doctors, not government bureaucrats[1]?

    [1] Offer void if you want an abortion or are named Schiavo.

  64. DannyA says:

    “Since when does the government have a legitimate role in determining how much food our children need during airport delays?”

    Agree 100% with you, Cory. Unfortunately, the inefficiency of the border agents (ICE, CBP, TSA) will continue. This children’s food was taken away; yet this other child’s life was taken(see story here). I hope that the delay in fixing this immigration issue will soon come so we can be blogging about happier and not-so-outrageous stories.

  65. absimiliard says:

    @13

    “If you can get past an irrational hatred for all things TSA, you might agree that this is a reasonable solution.”

    Firstly, I don’t think most people’s hatred of the TSA is irrational, most folk have perfectly good reasons to hate them that range from the personal, “they stole food for my baby”, to the theoretical, “I hate unconstitutional extensions of power on the part of the government, and particularly the fear-mongering tactics used to enable such extensions.”

    Secondly, even the TSA itself has admitted to the impossibility of mixing liquid explosive pre-cursors on a plane.

    So no, even if I didn’t hate the TSA, or even if I did and it was rational, I don’t think this is a “reasonable solution”.

    But frankly, I think you’re just another shill for authoritarianism and I doubt you would disapprove of anything our government did, ever, if you’d been alive during the Revolutionary War I’ll wager you’d have been a monarchist tory. Thanks for being a government apologist though, hopefully that biz works better for you on other sites. I don’t think it’s flying very well here.

    -abs

  66. airship says:

    The problem is, we have traded our freedom for security and all we’ve done is lost our freedom. We haven’t gotten any security in return.

  67. MOONBAT says:

    Steals food from doctors’ infant children?

    It’s entertaining to write with a point of view, but this is a little much.

    You attract a readership (now forum community) that thinks that type of distortion is acceptable when you do that; it has a direct impact on the quality of discourse in these threads.

  68. Xylocopa says:

    It wouldn’t be possible for an individual to open an over-window hatch at 35,000 feet, but it can be done at lower altitudes, where the difference between inside and outside pressure is not so great. Otherwise you would not be able to open them all, even in a real emergency.

  69. Geno Z Heinlein says:

    It’s entertaining to write with a point of view, but this is a little much.

    You’re right. Stealing involves, literally, stealth. This is robbery.

  70. bardfinn says:

    Moonbat:

    It’s hardly a point of view. Theft is theft, whether it is done by someone trying to stave off hunger or it is done by a government employee mindlessly following poorly-conceived policies and making up a non-existent policy (“has to be signed by Other Doctors”, indeed).

    Cory’s readers – myself included – read him because he is willing to call a spade a spade.

    The quality of discourse in these comments is generally fairly high – I speak as someone who spent a great deal of free time over the course of years ‘debating’ Creationists, and that is a cess-pool I never wish to revisit.

  71. Takuan says:

    “Anand V. Soni and his wife, Arati Pratap”

    say no more, Dirty Indian/Pakistani sounding wogs, daring to pretend to be doctors!

  72. Fnarf says:

    Death to the TSA. I would like JUST ONCE to hear about a bunch of people and their supervisors getting fired over stuff like this. I am SICK of turning over the security of the nation to these mouthbreathing rebrobates and their Nazi overseers.

  73. Takuan says:

    TSA Agents, Delta Employee Accused of Drug Smuggling

    Wednesday, February 20, 2008

  74. Alexis says:

    They have no qualifications, which is exactly why they must follow orders.

    Actually, the TSA spokesperson in the article acknowledged that the rule is vague. Therefore the officers were NOT “following orders” but were placing their judgment of “reasonable” above two doctors who also are parents of the child and know the child well. And who also have a realistic view of the likelihood of our air travel system running smoothly.

    The spokesperson’s response is disingenuous for the reason that it makes it sound like they agree that vagueness is a problem, when in fact almost all TSA rules are written so as to give as much power to the TSA workers as possible. They’re basically phrased as “You can have this, except when the officer says you can’t.” The knitting needles rule is written this way: needles are permitted unless the officer deems them a likely weapon. So basically, you never know. I don’t think this is an accident.

  75. Takuan says:

    TSA baggage screener accused of stealing from suitcases

    Tribune staff report
    February 15, 2008

  76. American Scot says:

    Yet another example of the DHS and TSA’s incompetence.

  77. Jake0748 says:

    TSA Jerkoffs…

  78. bobsyeruncle says:

    What kind of eff’d up administration observes that armed men trained as commercial airline pilots can cause catastrophic damage and decides to focus its attention on potential small quantities of liquid explosives concealed in toothpaste tubes and baby food jars?

  79. TheFool says:

    You all know it really won’t be long now until a small bribe will simply be necessary to make it through airport security etc. at all without hassle and delay.

  80. zantony says:

    At last we can begin the War on Babies. For too long these America-hating infants have consumed our formula with impunity. And what do they contribute?

    Poop, my fellow citizens. Poop.

    Also, pee.

    And what do they add to the discourse? Crying! And not even constructive crying, either. You’ll hear no reasoned 10-point plan from Mr. Baby on how to improve the declining stocks of freshies. Just inchoate demands, screeched at the tops of their lungs. Oh sure, sometimes they might coo or gurgle winsomely, perhaps even break out some “baby talk” to gain sympathy. Do not fall for it! It is a ruse to sow dissension among us.

    The baby apologists, these so-called parents, will tell you that we were all like that once. Base propaganda! I, for one, never remember being in such a sorry helpless state. Can you?

    I applaud the TSA for taking a hard line with these parasites. It is well overdue.

  81. brainologist says:

    One thing I’ve always been curious about: Many major airports have more than one security checkpoint for getting into the terminal. I’ve definitely seen people get out of line (after being told by a screener they can’t carry item X onto the plane) to return to the ticket counter to check a certain piece of luggage. So — Is it possible to just get out of line and instead go to another security checkpoint and try again, hoping perhaps to get more reasonable TSA agents? With a little footwork, one might actually win the security-line lottery once in a while…

  82. MOONBAT says:

    #45, ANTINOUS

    But isn’t the id the most individualistic aspect of the Freudian psyche? How does that square with the hive mind?

    Don’t ask anyone here. If they give you any answer, it will be wrong.

    Don’t ask me either. I have no time for you.

  83. Antinous says:

    Don’t ask me either. I have no time for you.

    Fine, but are you a boy or a girl?

  84. SalvoSensu says:

    I am reminded of what George Carlin said before 9-11 ever happened, “Airport security only exists to make white people feel safe.” Not much has changed, huh?

  85. Takuan says:

    jjjoin usss moonieeee,,,,bbeeeccommmee onnne offf ussss…..

    RESISTANCE IS USELESS> YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED< WE ARE THE BOING

  86. MOONBAT says:

    As I wrote in a previous comment, on the Internet everyone is a man until proven otherwise. It would be foolish to claim that I am a princess.

  87. Takuan says:

    all in all the TSA has worked well. All that energy lightning-rodded off on some mall cops and just now the general electorate is getting wise to what they have been up to since 2001. Just as they were leaving anyway.

  88. Takuan says:

    Is there for honest poverty
    That hangs his head, an’ a’ that
    The coward slave, we pass him by
    We dare be poor for a’ that
    For a’ that, an’ a’ that
    Our toil’s obscure and a’ that
    The rank is but the guinea’s stamp
    The man’s the gowd for a’ that

    What though on hamely fare we dine
    Wear hoddin grey, an’ a’ that
    Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine
    A man’s a man, for a’ that
    For a’ that, an’ a’ that
    Their tinsel show an’ a’ that
    The honest man, though e’er sae poor
    Is king o’ men for a’ that

    Ye see yon birkie ca’d a lord
    Wha struts an’ stares an’ a’ that
    Tho’ hundreds worship at his word
    He’s but a coof for a’ that
    For a’ that, an’ a’ that
    His ribband, star and a’ that
    The man o’ independent mind
    He looks an’ laughs at a’ that

    A prince can mak’ a belted knight
    A marquise, duke, an’ a’ that
    But an honest man’s aboon his might
    Gude faith, he maunna fa’ that
    For a’ that an’ a’ that
    Their dignities an’ a’ that
    The pith o’ sense an’ pride o’ worth
    Are higher rank that a’ that

    Then let us pray that come it may
    (as come it will for a’ that)
    That Sense and Worth, o’er a’ the earth
    Shall bear the gree an’ a’ that
    For a’ that an’ a’ that
    It’s coming yet for a’ that
    That man to man, the world o’er
    Shall brithers be for a’ that

  89. MOONBAT says:

    Now I’ve been roped into this insanity. I actually read the article (a complete waste of time) to ensure I don’t commit some error that makes me look bad. Next I’ll be quoting TSA documents and so on. When the only point I want to make is that Cory’s headline is outrageous and that people are venting misguided anger, which results in errors of fact and logic.

    If you want to complain about confiscation of baby food, fine. Just don’t say they “stole” the food from “infant children.”

    If you want to complain about TSA rules, fine. Just complain about the rules. Don’t complain about employees doing their jobs.

    The rule says a reasonable amount for the flight, and that’s the basis on which the decision was made. They followed the rule. If you want the rule changed to “unlimited baby food,” file a petition.

  90. MOONBAT says:

    The issue is the validity of liquid threats. The argument that a specific scenario involving liquid explosives was debunked and therefore liquids are not a threat is logically fallacious. Explosives are not the only potential liquid threat.

    Things deteriorate much however, when he claims that readership here in populated by the “unreasonable”. Based on?

    “The headline is sensationalist and highly subjective. Of course, boingboing, to my knowledge, has no mandate to preserve journalistic integrity or objectivity. So I reject Moonbat’s premise that there’s something wrong with the biased title.”

    Just because you can< get away with it doesn't make it right. Everyone here knows--unless he or she is dangerously delusional--that unreasonable comments are written on this site every day. The fact that those comments are written becomes the justification for writing more unreasonable comments.

    I doubt anyone here seriously disagrees with my take on the situation. The only difference is they like it that way.

  91. MOONBAT says:

    Oh, boy…

    See what I mean?

    When you stack the deck, it’s impossible to get any other result.

    If your posts were reasonable, you would get reasonable people reading your blog and commenting in the threads. As it is, reasonable people choose not to read your blog or (if they’re occasional readers or they come here for the links and ignore the politics) not to comment. People who do point out the unreason quickly learn that it doesn’t pay to do so–they don’t have the patience to deal with the inevitable response.

    There are blogs ten times crazier than this that attract just as dedicated a following. If this were a blog about scat porn, you’d have dozens of comments about how awesome scat porn is and how crazy anyone who disagrees must be.

Leave a Reply