"We've done a bad job, but it's because we need more money!"

OK - that's not a direct quote. Here's the actual quote:

Transportation Security Administration managers at Newark Liberty International Airport say security has "slowly diminished" over the years.

That was one of the findings in a performance analysis obtained by The Star-Ledger of Newark that was circulated during meetings led by TSA Area Director Jim Blair on Thursday.

The newspaper reported that Newark-based managers acknowledged a series of embarrassing lapses produced what they described as "a lack of faith in our ability to provide world class security" in travelers' minds.

The report said "understaffing, complacency and lack of focus," along with a lack of direction, poor communication and checkpoint design contributed to the decline in security.

The managers proposed changes in training and accelerating hiring to boost staff to handle labor-intensive full body scanners that were installed last fall.

Here's a better idea: scrap the TSA and put airport security in the hands of the airport and airline owners who have an incentive to provide actual, customer-friendly security.

Daily Mail covers New Orleans child molestation

No word yet from Amerikan media, but the UK has picked up the story of the 6-year old girl who got a custodial search (aka "pat down") courtesy of the TSA. This will not go away. The TSA will continue these absurd abuses and continue to generate rage from those of us who care. Slowly, the sheeple will wake up.

Note that, besides my posts on LRC and here and the various murmurings on social media, blogs, forums, and YouTube, I see that Matt Drudge picked this up, too.

Airport Director can't shed TSA

This is the first time I've heard an airport director

1. say that he does not want the TSA at his airport, and
2. that he also doesn't want private security that is just following TSA directives.

Good for Jerry Orr of Charlotte-Douglas Airport for pointing out the obvious truth: TSA is no good, and the so-called "opt-out" is not a significantly different choice. Here's hoping that more airports start paying attention to reality!

Another celebrity groping at LAX

This time, the actor tweeted about it. (Warning: Bad language - but who can blame him?)

"Security is serious business"

So serious that a clown gets detained for three hours, misses her flight, and has charges pressed for assaulting an officer. What did the clown do?

"I go through the scanner and on the other end I've got a bag, a megaphone, my purse and the basket of eggs and I'm trying to put my shoes back on. This woman comes up over my shoulder and says, 'What are those?'
"Well, they are eggs filled with confetti," I said.
Go on.
"I said, 'You want to see? This one's kind of broken. You're the winner. Here we go - smash!'
"And I smacked it on her head."

Read the rest here, and don't forget to look at the inane comments, from which I got the title of this post.

H/T Boycott Flying

Will Texas copy New Hampshire? I hope so!

Legislation is Texas would make TSA pat-downs equal to sexual assault. Go! Go! Go!

6-year old "pat down" in New Orleans

This is one of the most upsetting things I've seen in awhile, and it renews my resolve to continue to speak out about the criminal organization known as the TSA. Watch for yourself:

H/T Bill Fisher

UPDATE: The original video has been taken down, but you can find at least one other person who re-posted it by searching YouTube. I've updated the link to one that's working.

The next invasion of privacy

No doubt, travelers will rejoice at the "convenience" of being allowed to keep their shoes on once the TSA develops a "Shoe Scanning Device." But will your bunion be an anomaly, triggering a close-up inspection of your foot?

Terrorists have already moved on - as if they ever were seriously trying to implement shoe-bombs. They won't use a shoe bomb and they won't target an airplane. It will be something else and we'll gladly give up our rights to prevent the last attack next time, too. (If that last sentence didn't make any sense, it's because the TSA is confused, not my English.)

Religious? Boycott flying

The airlines clearly don't value your patronage.

What does "safe" mean?

As I start this post, let me re-iterate that the primary argument against TSA scanners is that it infringes on our basic human rights, which were specifically protected in the US Constitution.

A new study is out that concludes that the radiation from TSA scanners is "trivial." What exactly does this mean?

“Trivial’’ means only six additional cancers over the lifetimes of 100 million people who represent 750 million boardings a year in the U.S.

So, very few people in the general population will get cancer from the scanners. But that's not zero. Trust me: if you are one of the people who get the "additional" cancer, this is not trivial. This argument is not new. We've seen many people say that - yes, the risk is low, but it's not zero. So using this as primary screening is irresponsible.

Furthermore, there are many caveats to this conclusion that we can also predict from statements from other scientists. A biggie:

In addition, the study’s authors note they had to rely on TSA’s claims about radiation dosage from the machines. “Alas, the TSA has not made the machines available for researchers to make direct measurements,’’ Dr. Smith-Bindman said in an email.

So, we're still just taking the TSA's word on how these machine's work. Feel safer, yet?

Another one, pointed out in the original UCSF letter of concern last spring:

But other researchers have questioned the long-term safety of the machines, suggesting that radiation doses may be more harmful than previously reported because the X-ray machines concentrate radiation on the skin rather than penetrating the whole body.

The new study likely won’t put all the questions to rest, largely because models don’t exist to calculate incidence of most cancers based on skin-concentrated doses rather than whole-body organ penetration.

 I don't mean to criticize this study. We need scientists to help bring this issue to light. They're doing the best they can with the means available.

Disgraceful treatment of an autistic man

In response to this story, a TSA rep says that "TSA's policy is to treat everybody with respect." That's balogna, but it's true that this man was treated with the same (dis)respect as all travelers are by the TSA. His rights were violated and he was humiliated. The only difference is that he is probably more sensitive to this type of (mis)treatment than many other travelers. How incredibly sad and infuriating that this happened.

Read the story or watch the video:

Why fly?

With service like this, why  give the airlines hundreds or thousands of your hard-earned cash? It will only get worse, and you are giving up your rights at the same time. Keep your dignity and boycott flying!

The problem with public policy

A Law professor from Indiana University, Fred Cate, testified before Congress last month about the scanners. While his argument is factual, the effectiveness of the scanners is purely a peripheral issue (but one that Rep Mica no doubt wants to hear). I am surprised this is coming from a lawyer, but then, law may be all about pragmatism and safe policy, not - oh, I don't know - based on written law and the classical liberal principles that this nation is based on.

Also testifying, as I noted earlier, were Alaska State Rep Cissna, who just doesn't like the pat-down, but doesn't see the TSA in general as perpetrating rights violations.


Dr. David Brenner from Columbia lambasts the health risks of the backscatter, while not acknowledging any possible risks for the millimeter wave scanners. 

Doctors on scanners

CNN finds some docs who are worried and some who aren't.

via LRC

Radiation: Japanese vs American

I couldn't have said it better myself:

There isn't a whole lot Congress can do about a wind-driven nuclear cloud that spreads over the northwest, but there is something Congress can do about the proliferation of inconclusively tested, but lucrative X-ray body scanners.

Although this comment is silly:

Not a peep about popping a potassium pill before flying, or before entering a federal building from anyone either, only more concern about inhaling radiation from thousands of miles away.

The author is referring to Potassium Iodide pills. But these only protect you from radioactive iodine, not from any other sort of radiation.

The author redeems herself in the end, pointing out Congress' culpability in this assault on our freedoms:

Congress will be derelict in its duties if it fails to demand accountability from any government agency that holds not only the public's trust, but the public's health in its hands.