 |  | top stories | | 1 new story
no new comments | | etcetera | 2 new stories
33 new comments | | filmtv | 3 new stories
48 new comments | | media | 1 new story
44 new comments | | politics | 3 new stories
127 new comments | | scitech | 1 new story
10 new comments | | work | 2 new stories
28 new comments | |
| | | | | The TSA's Latest Directive: Random Vehicle Searches | | | | | found on Washington Post
written by ms_sue_collins, edited by Humberto (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Thu 20 Feb 12:11pm | | | | |
 |
We have legal standing to do this and do it in a constitutional manner.... Where there is a conflict, we'll work through that with local jurisdictions.
"The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has begun randomly inspecting vehicles as they approach airports, including cars and trucks that drop off passengers, 'in response to threats and intelligence information.'," writes ms_sue_collins. "Although the agency has required searches in nearby parking facilities, this latest directive is the first to include random checks at arrival and departure areas. At some airports police have set up the equivalent of a sobriety checkpoint, where officers visually inspect cars before searching a few. Police at Harrisburg International Airport in Pennsylvania have tried to make the inspection less intimidating by passing out lollipops to 'targeted' drivers."
| |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | 1. Wreaking havoc? | | | | by richlove |  | | | at Thu 20 Feb 12:26pm | score of 1.5 astute | | | | | | |
People who want to wreak havoc with the airlines could attack outside rather than on the plane.
People who want to wreak havoc could just as easily do it outside of Grand Central Station; how useful would it be to stop cars on Park Ave? Have terrorists specialized, and are they targeting only the airlines?
I'd prefer to wait and hear what the ACLU has to say about the legality of this, but as far as I'm concerned, this is a waste of money better spent on other security initiatives.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 2. Mixed feelings | | | | by TreeHouseHero |  | | | at Thu 20 Feb 12:37pm | score of 3 funny | | | | | | |
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I am very apprehensive about giving up any of my 4th amendment rights for any reason at all. On the other hand I do feel like we need to prevent another 9/11 from happening and that might mean sacraficing a few things.
I was thinking about changing my behaviours in the event my car was to be searched. I made a short list of things I will no longer carry in my car to make the search go more smoothly.
1. Dynamite ( I have permits)
2. My 4' bong
3. The family of illegal aliens in the trunk.
4. My copy of the Quran with all the "kill
whitey" sections highlighted in yellow.
5. Dead hookers,Severed limbs, decapitated heads, the hand cuffs and the rest of the stuff
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 4. You can keep #5. | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 12:44pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
After all, they're looking for terrorists here, not serial murderers. Besides, if they do question you about the decapitated heads, just tell them you're on your way to audition for the local dinner theatre production of The Sopranos.
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 7. Re: Mixed feelings | | | | by My name is Mudd |  | | | at Thu 20 Feb 12:54pm | score of 4 funny | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
See, this is why SUVs are needed. I can't count how many times I tried to stuff a dead hooker into my old Honda, only to have the illegal aliens toss her right back out.
Now that I drive an H2, I have plenty of dead hooker room.
Short then is the time which every man lives, and small is the nook of the Earth wherein he dwells.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 3. Why search near airports? | | | | by MonkeyBoy |  | | | at Thu 20 Feb 12:39pm | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
Why is this random car searching just done near airports? Is it to protect the large number of people in the terminals from bomb or chemical attacks?
Then why not randomly search cars anywhere there are large numbers of people? - stadiums, downtowns, amusement parks, schools, etc. Or is this coming up in Patriot II.
This effort seems long on upping FUD and short on having a purpose.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 14. Re: Why search near airports? | | | | by ignoblus | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 1:31pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Yes. But also probably something to do with fear of biological attack. Imagine the difference between releasing smallpox, say, in NYC subway and Kennedy airport. Subway - in a month or so, you probably have a third of the city infected before a response can be made. Airport - you have a third of the country infected and no response is possible.
It never was that simple, and it still isn't.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 38. Re: Why search near airports? | | | | by aml | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 8:10am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 17 | | | | | |
the stand's not typical stephen king, but i understand people's reticence. it's like 1100 pages.
the initial description of the plague's spread is fucking genius; the remainder of the book, a spiritual conflict between Good and Evil, acquits itself competently, if you're into that sort of thing.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 46. Re: Why search near airports? | | | | by veschke | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 8:45am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 17 | | | | | |
The opening chapters offer a pretty good idea of how a highly virulent plague would spread in a highly mobile society such as ours. So it's on the subway and not the airport? Somebody who was on the subway visits their sister in Jersey the next day, and the guy standing in line behind her at the grocery store that afternoon gets on a plane to Denver before those who were on that subway even notice that they're not feeling so good.
Release in an international airport would give it a little more initial oomph, but it would get there regardless. Buy you cabin in Montana before the rush starts, and watch out for those elk with wasting diseases....
Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 50. Re: Why search near airports? | | | | by ignoblus | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 8:57am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 46 | | | | | |
Yes, it would get out of NYC if released on the subway, but not as quickly. The difference is that other regions would have a chance to organize a response before they reached the same rate of infection. Even with smallpox, a response including quarnatine strategies and vaccinations, if promptly done, can have an effect.
So, Subway - New Jersey, Philadelphia even, might reach similar infection levels, but Washington would be a bit less and SF, Miami, Denver might only have a small community of infected individuals. Airport - simultaneous realization by every major city that the infection is already out of control.
It never was that simple, and it still isn't.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 30. Re: Why search near airports? | | | | by mrmoog | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 12:43am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Why is this random car searching just done near airports?
I'm trying very hard to keep up my sunny disposition through all of these announcements. So I'm trying to look on the bright side. Maybe I can convince myself that things will work out for the best. Here goes:
At least they're not raising parking fees at the airports.
At least they're not breaking into our cars while we wait for our flights.
At least they're just doing these "random" searches near the airport and not outside, say, mosques.
Hmm. I'm still not feeling any better.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 36. Why do dogs lick their balls? | | | | by MonkeyBoy | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 7:24am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Why is this random car searching just done near airports?
It may be the answer to both questions is "because they can".
It seems somehow the TSA has been given authority to order police to search vehicles on airport property, so they are just exercising this authority.
The TSA has yet to be given dominion over sports stadiums, otherwise they would be licking their balls there.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 64. Airline Aid | | | | by MonkeyBoy | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 12:29pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Why is this random car searching just done near airports?
After the 9/11 attacks many people refused to fly from fear of being hijacked. A fear that so far hasn't proved out.
A large justification for TSA actions may just be to convince the public that it is safe to fly again. Thus it doesn't matter whether the TSA is effective, it only matters if they are visible.
I am sure that today airline usage is still below pre 9/11 levels. So maybe the administration decided that what the airlines need is more TSA visibility to increase confidence.
But this reasoning doesn't acknowledge the economy as the reason for the airlines' problems.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 5. What happens if they find anything? | | | | by Anywhere | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 12:45pm | score of 1.5 interesting | | | | | | |
If they find, for example, a trunk full of guns, what happens, assuming that the owner has the necessary permits to have them there? Are there any laws that specifically prohibit bringing weaponry onto airport propert as opposed to bringing it onto the air plane?
Gateway computers are pieces of shit, and their customer service is abysmal. Ask me why if you want to hear me vent.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 6. Ah checkpoints, those random bastions of freedom | | | | by shadarr | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 12:49pm | score of 3 astute | | | | | | |
I would be less concerned if there were assurances that the officers in question were only looking for explosives or biological agents. Will they turn a blind eye to drugs or drug paraphernalia? Will you get interrogated about questionable reading material, say the Anarchist's Cookbook or the Unabomber Manifesto? Will you have to prove you own a CD copy of every file on your MP3 player?
"People who want to wreak havoc with the airlines could attack outside rather than on the plane."
People who want to wreak havoc can do so anywhere. Will we then have random checkpoints anywhere, anytime, looking for anything "suspicious"? I would be less cynical if this administration's actions seemed more than tangentially related to its words. The potential for terror attacks is looks to me like an excuse, rather than a legitimate cause.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 52. Re: Ah checkpoints, those random bastions of | | | | by chancaca | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 9:03am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 6 | | | | | |
Reminds me of that National Guard vehicle (camouflaged) parked right at the base of the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge for many months following 9/11/01. One big jeep with two guys in it wearing combat fatigues, usually sipping coffee of chatting on their cellphone. Supposedly they were there to "monitor" suspicious vehicles that might pose a threat to the bridge. In months of commuting across the bay I never saw anybody pulled over, any vehicle stopped. They must have gotten bored, because the truck isn't there anymore. Musta gone over to the airport.
Killing Confusion by Eliminating Options
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 13. Re: I've got permits | | | | by doormat | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 1:26pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
Yea, thats nuts. Imagine this.. in las vegas, the university sits right next to the airport, so that anyone could park at the top of the north campus parking garage, have a clear line of sight, and be within 0.5 km of the flight path for the airport. In fact, there are lots of parking garages that have perfect views of the flight path into and out of the airport. You expect people to have their car searched at all parking garages near the airport (since they arent covered, and you can park on the top level of the garage)? Thats nuts... there is just too many holes in the system for this tactic to be effective!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 21. We at TSA respect your concerns. | | | | by andy p | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 6:20pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 13 | | | | | |
Boy, you sure have done your research. Our agents will the arriving shortly to intero.... I mean discuss your concerns. Were exactly in Las Vegas do you live again, "doormat" (if that is your real name)
Barrels are just crates with delusions of grandeur
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 26. Re: I've got permits | | | | by zelwyn | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 9:32pm | score of 2 informative | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
You don't need a missle.
An ordinary .50 caliber rifle will probably do the trick.
I remember reading an article in the Wall Street Journal about this a few months ago, but damn if I can find it. What I did find was a NYTimes article on the same subject.
Unlike shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missiles, which are, I assume, illegal to posses in the US, a high-powered rifle, like the conversion kit linked here is (for the moment) perfectly legal. A search at the perimiter of an airport would be powerless to do anything about it, short of denying the vehicle access to the facility.
But seriously, there is no reason to even go to the airport. In NJ, you can be driving alongside the runways at Newark Airport for nearly a mile, none of it (to my admittedly untrained eye) patrolled in any kind of vigorous manner. There is literally NOTHING to stop someone from pulling over to the side of the road, taking a few shots from a .50 caliber sniper rifle, and then just driving away.
The effect of a large projectile going through the turbine blades on a jet engine on takeoff or landing would be nothing short of catasrophic.
The point I'm trying to make is that stopping people at the perimiter of airports is useless. In my opinion, it is just another way for law enforcement to justify intrusive searches, that would otherwise be unthinkable, in the dubious name of "National Defense" or "The 'war' on terror".
Say, I'd buy that for a dollar!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 10. SeaTac and other airports | | | | by Hinten | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 1:18pm | score of 1.5 informative | | | | | | |
You can find a more detailed position statement in this Seattle-Times article
SeaTac is not alone in this, Spokane and Oregon international have joined the refusal.
Interestingly enough, roadblocks to find drunk drivers were found illegal int he State of Washington.
I think this will be wiped off the table on technicalities. Simply move the roadblock closer to the airport building and argue that the road is not public anymore but part of the private property of the airport.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 12. At which point, you ask "what's the point?" | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 1:24pm | score of 1.5 interesting | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
"Simply move the roadblock closer to the airport building and argue that the road is not public anymore but part of the private property of the airport."
Assuming that one of the purposes behind this drill is to preclude vehicles loaded with explosives, being driven by suicide bombers, from getting near the terminal building, wouldn't they be facilitating the plan of any group of mad bombers by having the "bomb on wheels" to idle next to the building amongst some other vehicles waiting to be inspected?
I honestly don't have a clue what these checkpoints are expected to accomplish, other than to give some sort of superficial appearance that someone is doing something.
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 31. correct me if i'm wrong, but | | | | by coprolalia | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 12:43am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
it was my impression, possibly false, that most major airports are publicly owned, mainly because of the grevious amount of zoning and environmental restrictions they have to pass, and that terminals are leased to different airlines, not bought outright.
My whole life is an empty exercise in mean spirited sarcasm. --gordon shumway
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 16. Is it No. 2 train to my underwear? | | | | by Rubberstamp | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 2:01pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
When arriving at SeaTac I had to board a subway to get to my luggage. A subway that had lost it's urban appeal because it felt as if I was getting further away from my stuff...when in fact I was heading towards my stuff.
So if I had packed a bag full of explosives, it would have most likely destroyed the netherworld that my luggage had gone to/come from...
-1 irrelevant...but somehow possible. I should stop drinking at work.
"Why don't you come down here and chum some of this shit." -- M. Brody
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 19. Are they really going to look | | | | by Jelly | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 4:17pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Gosh, I hope that these random searches are as effective as the ones to get into the airport parking lots were. I've made numerous trips to the airport with cardboard boxes and big coolers (as well as occasionally luggage) in my trunk and not only have the cops never stopped me for more than a cursory 3 second glance, I've never seen any other cars (including big ol' Suburbans crammed full of junk) get more than the 3 second glance either.
What are they possibly looking for? Did someone get a tip that terrorists were showing up with something labeled "bomb" in a trunk? I'm fairly sure that one could pack quite a bit of C4 (or even a bazooka or two) into a few suitcases if so inclined.
Not that I want the police to be opening up luggage, but the whole thing strikes me as another annoying cosmetic "fix."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 20. States' rights are the least of the problems | | | | by ilsa | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 6:01pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
What about Constitutional rights? Fourth Amendment, anyone? Why doesn't it seem to extend to airport property?
Basically, the TSA is capitalizing on the fact that if you are going to the airport, you are in too big a hurry to say "No, officer. You may not search my vehicle. You will have to get a search warrant."
I can only think of one incident that might have been prevented by this tactic: the fellow who shot up the El Al terminal last Independence Day. This man had not made it as far as the security station, where most of us would like to believe his weapons would have been found. By contrast, I can think of a hundred ways to wreak havoc on an airport from miles away.
I hope a court smacks this down in short order.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 23. Regardless of legality... | | | | by happyslinky | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 7:39pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
The vehicle inspections, aimed at detecting explosives and dangerous substances, will be quick and unobtrusive, Anderson said.
"We expect people will be able to get on their way in a minute or two," he said. "We do appreciate the public's understanding." [here]
Does this make any sense to anyone? The terrorists have demonstrated the intelligence, motivation and ability to render any "minute or two" long "quick and unobtrusive" search thoroughly useless.
If you're going to invade my privacy and potentially violate the constitution you could at least do something that has a chance of being effective...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 24. Lollipops make everything better | | | | by TheCyko1 | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 9:28pm | score of 2 brilliant | | | | | | |
Police at Harrisburg International Airport in Pennsylvania have tried to make the inspection less intimidating by passing out lollipops to 'targeted' drivers.
YAY! Lollipops! Those makes everything better!
This message was brought to you by the death of 30 brain cells
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 28. Frantic Handwaving | | | | by datapulse | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 11:04pm | score of 1.5 compelling | | | | | | |
This is an effort by the Bush Administration to look like they're accomplishing something. By focusing purely on airport security they are directing the public's attention to only the airlines. This is to make people believe that airports are our only point of weakness. These over-the-top security measures will probably put a lot of people at ease due to their narrow perception of the truth...and what is the truth? That on your 15 minute drive to work you probably passed by a dozen or so terrorist "targets"! Yes sir, the Super Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Publix, City Hall, etc. All these places make prime targets, even more preferable than an airplane. The events of 9/11 took tedious planning and should've been stopped at numerous stages. We didn't need new security, we just needed to follow what we already had.
So...these new security measures will go largely uncontested by the general public. We like to think we're safe from the evil terrorists and their airplanes. The Bush Administration knows these methods are ineffective, but they HAVE to do something and the airports are the most visual targets right now. If they just said "We don't need new security, we'll be fine." We would hear an uproar from the general public and probably some from this site.
BTW, what ever happened to Bin Laden? I take it we got him?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 45. Re: Frantic Handwaving | | | | by swalve | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 8:34am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 28 | | | | | |
I agree with everything you said. Except the last two sentences of your first paragraph. As I understand it, the only weapons those guys had were allowable at the time. Tedious planning? Far as I can tell, all they needed was some cash, MS Flight Simulator 2000, and a time table.
Regarding Bin Laden, he is only important as a figurehead. The organization he set up can still cause a lot of trouble if he were to be martyred. Our goal is to dismantle and disrupt that organization, which we're still doing.
"If silence is golden, you couldn't raise a dime!"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 29. Desensitizing the public | | | | by spiderfarmer | | | | at Thu 20 Feb 11:18pm | score of 4 astute | | | | | | |
It's all about making this sort of search seem "normal". Once it's accepted at airports, then they can start doing it near stadiums, or malls, or highway intersections. It's just a matter of making people comfortable with martial law.
"Oh Bother," said Pooh as he stared into the unspeakable visage of Cthulhu.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 42. Re: Desensitizing the public | | | | by eduardo |  | | | at Fri 21 Feb 8:22am | score of 0.5 disingenuous | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | |
It's all about making this sort of search seem "normal".
Any chance, at all, that it's about trying to keep bombs and missile launchers away from airports?
J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 66. Re: Desensitizing the public | | | | by bosconet | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 6:48pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 42 | | | | | |
Any chance, at all, that it's about trying to keep bombs and missile launchers away from airports?
They might say that is what it is for but it is just a half assed attempt (much like most of the other new security measures). As others have pointed out you don't need to be driving up to the terminal to launch that Stinger. For instance at Atlanta Hartfield there is a highway running parallel to one of the runaway. I just pull over and launch the stinger from there and make my get away.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 60. Is it legal to refuse? | | | | by JearBear16 | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 10:31am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | |
My first reaction to this was along the lines of your desensitization argument. My second reaction, however, was to be shocked that I had even considered desensitization as my first reaction, as really to me the question is whether or not I can legally refuse this search. If they have no warrant, no nada, and ask if they can search my car, can I legally say "No," and then drive on? Can they stop me, keep me from my flight, if I do not want to be searched.
That I would even not consider refusing as my first reaction kind of scares me - it shows that the desensitization has already begun.
IANAL, by, I do think one can refuse this search and still fly - anyone care to field that?
man + hydrodynamic forces = me
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 68. Re: Is it legal to refuse? | | | | by spiderfarmer | | | | at Sun 23 Feb 12:08am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 60 | | | | | |
I'm not sure what the standing on refusing searches is anymore, to be honest. Since it's the feds, I think if you refused, they would pull you over and keep you until they got a warrant...but I could be wrong. The PATRIOT act may give them carte blanche for this kind of search.
"Oh Bother," said Pooh as he stared into the unspeakable visage of Cthulhu.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 32. January 26th, 2006 - Your House | | | | by DanDanDanDan | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 5:37am | score of 2 funny | | | | | | |
* knock knock knock *
- Who is it?
- TSA, random search.
- Just a moment! Ah, hello officers, how are you today? May I offer you some coffee?
- No, thank you, we're just looking around; we'll be out of your way in a few minutes.
(The agents rummage around, peek into the basement, look behind the coats in the hall closet, then spread out to every room. Working with great efficiency, they reconvene at the front door.)
- Well, you're clean. Thank you very much for your cooperation. By the way, we found this.
- My good hairbrush! I've been looking for that! Where was it?
- Under the couch cushions. We also found almost three dollars in loose change. Here you go.
- Thank you very much!
- All part of the service.
- See you next month, then?
- If we're in the neighborhood.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 47. Re: January 26th, 2006 - Your House | | | | by swalve | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 8:48am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 41 | | | | | |
Reminds me of a story I heard once (from the guy it actually happened to, not the brother in law of the mailman, etc). Had some workers in the house remodeling, and it was drywall day. The cat was terrified. They did one side of a wall, the cat snuck in between the studs, and then they did the other side of the wall. Homeowner gets home from work and hears the cat somewhere in the house. Looks all over the place- he can hear the cat meowing and scratching, but can't tell where it is. Like he was being haunted by the cat. Finally he realizes what happened and had to call in the builders to tear down the wall. Hilarious.
"If silence is golden, you couldn't raise a dime!"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 34. Lollipops! | | | | by jare2003 | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 6:50am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Somewhat off topic, but the passing out of lollipop reminded me of an incident in my Texas middle school where some misguided adminstrator, passed out lollipops during Drug Awareness/Prevention week with this tagline: "Let's Lick Drugs!"
Obviously, he meant something else entirely than what first comes to mind.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 35. code red=matial law | | | | by montana rain | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 7:12am | score of 1.5 brilliant | | | | | | |
RRRRIP! There goes another little piece of the constitution. Everything the government does happens in steps. If they just laid it out all at once, people would freak out and revolt. STEP 1 - Get the public used to random car searches around airports. (SIDE NOTE: I'm already used to random car searches, because anytime I've been pulled over, cops automatically search my car anyways. I just don't carry anything I can't eat or shove in my ass). To "sweeten" up the obtrusive search, give lolli-pop to obeying citizen after search, kind of like a treat you give a dog when it rolls over. STEP 2 - Just continue stretching the searches to anywhere people gather, because if nobody cared about STEP 1, why would they care about STEP 2? Afterall, it's all in the name of thwarting TERRORISM! Yes, I am afraid of terrorism, because terrorism is what is causing the government to slowly take away the rights of law abiding citizens. I'm watching all my rights slowly slip away, and all I get is a lousy lolli-pop? Lube and a thank you would be more appreciated.
someone once told me that i was radical... i said, yeah, like, totally!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 48. Re: code red=matial law | | | | by eduardo | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 8:49am | score of 0.5 obnoxious | | in reply to comment 39 | | | | | |
Actually, I remember "laughing" (not really) at those militia people and apply it to the current sentiment on this board. Laughing isn't the right term though, "you're nuts" is more like it.
J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 40. Re: code red=matial law | | | | by eduardo | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 8:15am | score of 0.5 obnoxious | | in reply to comment 35 | | | | | |
I just don't carry anything I can't eat or shove in my ass).
Sorry but I had to laugh at the image of you driving a pickup truck full of cock.
Lube and a thank you would be more appreciated
You don't need lube when there's love.
J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 44. In a way it makes some sense | | | | by Coffeedemon | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 8:32am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
You could easily kill many more people by detonating a bomb while all those folks are waiting in long security lines to board many different planes. As well, such an act would make these security checks even worse in a lot of peoples eyes - an allegation of sorts that the herd of people created by a line may place people in harms way in the future.
But I still don't believe in random vehicle checks. Just playing devils advocate I guess.
... but I lied when I said that honesty was dead - NoMeansNo
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 49. Half Life of Freedom | | | | by DarkReazon | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 8:54am | score of 2 compelling | | | | | | |
I have wondered, in this crazy post 9/11 world, if the bitterness of a jilted nation will be enough to unify its vision. When the fires of hate are no longer being fanned, and the engines of anger have run out of steam. When the futility of the battle has been realized. Between the channels and entertainment news, I have wondered if there is enough left to give a damn about?
When the first plane hit the WTC, there was no doubt in my mind, it was an attack. My co-workers were alarmed by my callousness, and my rash speculation. They could not realize the number of preventative measures involved with keeping a plane in the sky, or at the very least, from crashing in a densely populated area. When the second plane hit, they were silent. It was clear to all this was an attack.
Despite all the ravings of brotherhood and unity, despite the media coverage desperately stretched to display the best in mankind, the crimes escalated. The atrocious claims of looting that were chalked up to disgraceful and hurtful rumours in this time of pain still rattled me. The death toll that made us forget Oklahoma City, and Tim McVeigh, and the previous worst act of terrorism on American soil, that seemed almost minor in comparrison to the sheer concentration of death now presented on 24/7 coverage. The smoking ruins in 32bit colour, from the eye in the sky.
America's retaliation was the obvious choice. To strike back. To hurt. To destroy. To send a message, a defiant scream of rage. And the allies sympathized.
I have heard constantly "we are fighting for our very way of life". It is an unmitigated lie. Saddled with economic decline, corporate abuses, and political powers gone awry, patriotism is the snake oil salespitch that is selling like hotcakes. The rights of the individual are being trounced and the Constitution is being repackaged to a more oligarchy friendly version.
Are these the sacrifices required to replenish the tree of liberty? Is it even remotely possible that the ideals America was founded on have somehow become antiquated? Rendered obsolete for corporate favor.
The truly sad thing will be, after the 4th, 2nd and 1st amendments have been deemed "Unpatriotic" and revoked, those few freedom fighters who recognize what they have lost will be labelled "terrorists" as well.
But it will never end up like that...
Regards,
Shaun.
He who fights with monsters might take care, lest he thereby become a monster. - F.W.N.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 53. Searches versus Inspections | | | | by grantham | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 9:31am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
When I read the original story, I was confused, and the Plastic discussion unfortunately hasn't cleared things up for me.
What are they doing? I keep seeing the word "search" thrown around, but I don't find any indication that they're doing random full searches. You know, the traditional go through the trunk, go through the glove compartment, have fun putting your luggage back together thingy. Or are they doing more of a look you in the eye to see if you run, wave an explosives detector near the trunk sort of thing, and only searching if they establish probably cause or reasonable suspicion or whatever?
As somebody who's interested in this both from the point of view of a traveler and a citizen, it's hard to start to analyze what's going on without knowing...what's going on.
I live at pseudoprime.com
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 55. It's the Economy, Stupid | | | | by Anonymouse Savant | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 10:09am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
No, I'm not going to rant that this is all a shell game to distract us from the revocation of civil rights and a power-grab by those who can. That's simply obvious.
My rant is that we'll never get this economy rolling in this environment. As a very frequent traveler, I can confirm that while the balance of efficiency/effectiveness/intelligence of security improved steadily from 9/12 lows until about December 2002, the last two months have slipped backward significantly. I don't know the reason.
I do know that if the TSA makes my travel life any more unpleasant I can be persuaded to travel 20% or even 50% less. I'd guess the net negative economic impact of that (including only the most direct trickle-down) would be well over $250,000/year. And no, I will not earn/spend the money elsewhere. I'll simply spend less time working and more time fishing. After all, there are no terrorists and no TSA on the lake.
Meanwhile, the brilliant upthread image of the TSA as a mangy mutt licking its balls will keep me smiling at the airport for at least two more weeks.
Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuses. (R. Heinlein)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 63. Make all airport access "park and ride". | | | | by RebolMan | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 12:26pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Seems simple enough to me. Put the parking areas far enough away from the terminals, and have shuttle buses. Most every airport already has this, so why not just make it the only way to approach the terminal. Hell, you can even push the luggage search out to the shuttle bus boarding area...
But hey, were not really interested in improving our security; it's too expensive, and it'll be much more effective to seize and violate our rights.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 65. I was searched | | | | by dpr | | | | at Fri 21 Feb 1:57pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
... last weekend in New Orleans by some friendly TSA folks in their shiny, new TSA uniforms. The search took only a few minutes. The "inspectors" were friendly, polite and not the least bit thorough.
They looked in the trunk and beneath the spare tire cover. That's it.
I didn't see so much as a drug-sniffing dog. And I certainly didn't have to drive my car through a super-sized version of the luggage bomb detectors they've installed in the terminals. I could have hidden almost ANYTHING in that car: dynamite, cocaine, fruit flies... Their abbreviated "search" could have uncovered only the most ineptly concealed weapons or contraban.
Maybe they're profiling and neatly-dressed, well-groomed white males simply don't justify a lengthy search. Maybe it'd be different if I was wearing my "Save Osama" pin or had an ACLU bumber sticker. All the same, I haven't got much confidence in the TSA's ability to thwart a terrorist in a Chevy.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 67. Oh Sweet Texas. | | | | by choodak | | | | at Sat 22 Feb 3:03pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
I wonder how this will go down in Texas. Remember this is the state where every other person is armed (legally). For that matter how about all those states where gun racks are standard equipment on pick-up trucks.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | Member Login | | | |
|
