Today’s TSA six-year-old patdown stupidity.

Six year old kid, going to Disneyland

No, not that six-year-old: another one.

And no, not this six-year-old, either. She’s just on a no-fly list.

Hold on… nope, not this six-year-old! She doesn’t count, because she was actually three!

…What the heck is wrong with our current security apparatus that I have to establish which six-year-old the TSA is patting down? That’s a rhetorical question, by the way: it’s the frustrating combination of an executive branch that can’t control a bureaucracy, a legislative branch that refuses to set up clear guidelines for the bureaucracy in the first place*, and a judiciary that takes a dim view of people slugging other people in the nose.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*We tend to forget that, because it’s easy and accurate to blame either the guy at the top, the people at the bottom, or both. But Congress fell down on the job when they hastily crammed together a bunch of law enforcement agencies and called it a new Cabinet department. The fallout to that is still going on…

One thought on “Today’s TSA six-year-old patdown stupidity.”

  1. “The press reports are horrifying: 95 year-old women humiliated; children molested; disabled people abused; men and women subjected to unwarranted groping and touching of their most private areas; involuntary radiation exposure. If the perpetrators were a gang of criminals, their headquarters would be raided by SWAT teams and armed federal agents. Unfortunately, in this case the perpetrators are armed federal agents. This is the sorry situation ten years after the creation of the Transportation Security Administration.

    The requirement that Americans be forced to undergo this appalling treatment simply for the “privilege” of traveling in their own country reveals much about how the federal government feels about our liberties. The unfortunate fact that we put up with this does not speak well for our willingness to stand up to an abusive government…”

    http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1884&Itemid=69

Comments are closed.