Mission Impossible

I always thought the whole "master of disguise" plot device was unrealistic, cheap, and best suited for Scooby Doo mysteries.

But now Canadian authorities are detaining a young Asian man who boarded an Air Canada flight wearing a high-quality head and neck mask which disguised him as an elderly white man. For whatever reason, he decided to take off the disguise mid-flight.

(CNN video.)

Well, there goes one argument for racial profiling. A high-grade silicone mask is all it takes to change your race or age and avert TSA scrutiny. But I'm sure our Homeland Security is already dreaming up countermeasures. Maybe in addition to the new freaky groin and breast pat-downs, TSA can also try to peal off your face!

As many others have said before, all this airport hassle and humiliation is not making us safer. We already took the most important measure which was reinforcing cockpit doors. Passengers are also very alert now and will not let some idiot with a knife commandeer a flight. All this other expensive security theater can be bypassed by anybody who is marginally smart and highly determined.

Speaking of airport humiliation, EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security to suspend the deployment of body scanners at US airports, pending an independent review. They allege that the naked scans these machines produce violate the Fourth Amendment, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act.

Yep, our government is no better than a pervert with a web cam.

In-Flight Entertainment

Amazingly* nobody got a video of the fed-up JetBlue flight attendant who cursed at an unruly passenger, quit his job, grabbed a beer, and exited via the emergency slide, but here's an animated reenactment:

(YouTube video.)
Of course, what the video doesn't show is that the flight attendant, Steven Slater, was later arrested at his home in Queens and charged with felony counts of criminal mischief and reckless endangerment. He has since been released on bail.

And what about the jerk of a passenger? Aren't we all sick of this type on flights... or anywhere actually? Okay, I might sound a little vicious, but I can't wait for the passenger to be identified!

However, I'm still not going to call Slater a hero, but I will say if you're going to have an on-the-job meltdown, it's best to take the nearest exit rather than resort to violence.

*Or not so amazingly. Looks like JetBlue has previously threatened passengers who take videos of in-flight altercations.

The Anti-Tax Plane

As tax day approaches, many of us are on edge.

Tragically, a Texas man this morning set his house on fire and then intentionally flew a small airplane into the Austin Echelon Building which was home to IRS offices. The man is believed to be Andrew Joseph Stack. He is presumed dead. Thirteen others were hurt - two critically, and one person is missing.

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security said there is no reason to believe that terrorism is involved.

You can read Joe Stack's manifesto yourself. As far as manifestos go, I thought it was quite readable though full of contradictions. He's clearly against taxes, but ends with the communist creed.

As these events unfolded, I wasn't sure how the media would pigeonhole Stack, or who would own him or disown him. The man had quite a hodgepodge of political views, and he thought violence was the answer to bad government.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is already implying that the attack was an example of voter frustration. Put that together with the fact that Stack is white and has an American sounding name, and well... I knew somebody would find a terrorist they could really relate to.

Don't try to tell me Joe Stack isn't a terrorist. He intentionally crashed his plane into a building! He attacked civilians, and his purpose was to make a political statement. That's terrorism.

It's also a weird story about a disturbed man. It won't do our country any good to bicker over which ideology he thought he was fighting for.

Palins vs. Griffins

(Hulu video)

I'm not sure if it was this catchy little showtune or the subsequent date scene that caused the Palin family to go into their notorious Facebook rapid response mode:

People are asking me to comment on yesterday’s Fox show that felt like another kick in the gut. Bristol was one who asked what I thought of the show that mocked her baby brother, Trig (and/or others with special needs), in an episode yesterday. Instead of answering, I asked her what she thought. Here is her conscientious reply, which is a much more restrained and gracious statement than I want to make about an issue that begs the question, “when is enough, enough?”:

“When you’re the son or daughter of a public figure, you have to develop thick skin. My siblings and I all have that, but insults directed at our youngest brother hurt too much for us to remain silent. People with special needs face challenges that many of us will never confront, and yet they are some of the kindest and most loving people you’ll ever meet. Their lives are difficult enough as it is, so why would anyone want to make their lives more difficult by mocking them? As a culture, shouldn’t we be more compassionate to innocent people – especially those who are less fortunate? Shouldn’t we be willing to say that some things just are not funny? Are there any limits to what some people will do or say in regards to my little brother or others in the special needs community? If the writers of a particularly pathetic cartoon show thought they were being clever in mocking my brother and my family yesterday, they failed. All they proved is that they’re heartless jerks. - Bristol Palin”

So they think Family Guy mocked Trig? Let me recap the episode. Chris has a crush on a mentally disabled girl in his math class, and he asks her on a date. They go out together and over dinner the girl tells Chris, "My dad's an accountant, and my mom's the former governor of Alaska." That's the closest thing to a Palin family reference I could find.

The date goes downhill from there. The girl is way too bitchy and demanding for kind-hearted Chris.

It was inevitable that the dysfunctional Palin family would one day clash with the dysfunctional Griffin family, but this episode wasn't even about the Palin family! "My mom's the former governor of Alaska" is a throwaway joke. Maybe we're supposed to interpret that line as the girl making a sarcastic jab or an obvious fib. I never know how to interpret Family Guy's random pop culture references.

In fact, I don't really like Family Guy, but I completely approve of putting disabled characters in cartoons like South Park, for example. Remember Timmy? Whether in a rock band, traveling back in time, training a stunt turkey, or being chased by NAMBLA, he was always right there participating with his able-bodied peers. Most people with disabilities (I am one and I know quite a few others) wish the world was more like that... well, minus the NAMBLA part. My point is that the depiction of the mentally disabled high school student doing all the normal high school things is pleasingly progressive.

I'm tired of Sarah Palin using her son Trig as a political prop to attack all things she perceives as elitist and liberal. When she quit her job as the governor of Alaska, I naively hoped that she would use her celebrity status to advocate for the disabled, but the woman simply has no clue. All we've seen from her are fabrications about death panels and a new Republican form of political correctness.

Where is her outrage over the recent story of TSA screeners forcing a 4-year-old to remove his leg braces and walk through an airport security checkpoint unaided? Against the TSA's own rules! Hey Sarah, these are the real cruelties facing real children with disabilities.

Life is Dangerous

(YouTube video)

Retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney wants to be very serious and harsh about profiling. He wants to strip search all 18-28 year old Muslim men at the airport. This isn't "racial profiling" according to him. It's just "profiling."

Here are my random thoughts:

• We'll see more 29-year-old terrorists.
• We'll see more female terrorists.
• We'll see more exploding diapers on children.
• We'll see more terrorists wearing crosses around their necks.
• We won't see any of this because terrorists will pick new targets.
• Osama Bin Laden will do the next attack himself because he can fly without being strip searched.
• I'm not sure any new rules will stop a terrorist who is willing to die.
  
• Is it just me, or did McInerney seem a little bit aroused over his own plans?
• Somebody at FOX News didn't like this idea? Wow.

Also, relying on stereotypes is ineffective and dangerous. Being against this type of profiling is not "political correctness."

And I said this a few days ago, but it's worth repeating: this isn't security. It's a useless, knee-jerk reaction.

On a related note, another bloviating radio host wants to "scrutinize anybody with the name Abdul." What? She's not even on American Idol anymore. Leave her alone.

The Underpants Bomber

I debated whether the Christmas Day Underpants Bomber was worthy of a blog post. I wasn't at all surprised. We're still threatened by terrorists? No shit. I wasn't intrigued. Somebody tried to bring down an airliner? You're kidding me? And I wasn't frightened. Dangers exist in the world? Even on Christmas?

The modus operandi of this near disaster was funny though... like something from every wannabe comedian's act. Will TSA ask us to take off our underpants now? Well, not if airports get these naked scanners:


The real story here is our reaction. That's all we do when it comes to security -- react. It starts with the 24-hour news channel coverage loop which is clearly designed to scare the shit out of us. Then, TSA implements new flight restrictions like asking passengers to stay in their seats for the last hour of the flight. So now any potential terrorist has to launch his plot 65 minutes before landing. Golly, that ought to stop them.

The fact is that every "security hole" we plug has existed since the beginning of commercial flights. That's right. We've always been at the mercy of liquid bombers, shoe-bombers, and underpants-bombers. When somebody actually attempts it, we react. And then somebody will attempt something else, and the fear feeds the endless loop, and maybe one day the airports will give us all paper hospital gowns, anesthetize us, and still.. somebody will find a way to cause harm.

At least one security expert has it right. Bruce Schneier has been saying this for years:

Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.

Everything else is a useless, knee-jerk reaction. As a nation, we still act ridiculously naive on these issues.

Anyway, I'm going back to playing with my Christmas toys. Stay safe.

Transparency for All

Of course, the Department of Homeland Security insists this is no big deal, but somehow a private government contractor posted a TSA air passenger screening manual online. And unfortunately, the supersecret parts of the PDF were redacted by drawing black boxes over them. Oh! Nobody will ever figure that out! The MSM will try to tell you that "hackers" used their elite skills to remove the black boxes, but in reality all it took was a copy of Acrobat Professional.

So what was revealed? Well DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano says "the security of the travelling public has never been put at risk," but I don't believe it. I'm sure many terrorists would love to know what size electrical wire can go undetected by airport screening machines or how to sneak in through the exit lane.

However, if you're traveling this holiday season, I suppose this new level of transparency can be very helpful! Gawker has kindly assembled 10 tips to get you past airport security based on the TSA manual. Tip number seven was the most disturbing to me:

7. Be Disabled:
The FSD may authorize the following modifications for the screening of Persons With Disabilities:
1) ETD searches are not required for:
a. Wheelchair and scooter cushions
b. Footwear of disabled individuals that cannot be removed
c. Prosthetic devices, casts, or support braces
d. Orthopedic shoes

Well, thanks Internet! It's not like this wheelchair user does a lot of traveling anyway, but now the TSA will be sure to overcompensate and give me an anal probe.

Off the Bus

"You're either on the bus, or you're off the bus." — Ken Kesey

Sarah Palin, the quitter who keeps on quitting, isn't even on her own bus. Her so-called "bus tour" has been hitting small towns to promote her book. It also allows her to meet her fans and spread the word that reading is fundamental. I wouldn't be surprised if Going Rogue is the first non-picture-book her fans have read. Ever.

But here's the funny part. The big ugly bus with the Going Rogue cover painted on the side is a total ruse. It's a prop just like George W. Bush's ranch.

Sarah Palin has been traveling in a Gulfstream II which looks something like this:


How jetset! Another word for jetset is "elite" which is exactly how she loved to portray Barack Obama as during last year's campaign.

Do her delusional fans still think she's just like them?

Let it Snow

It's a slippery slope. First TSA takes our babies (or not) and then they take our snowglobes. Both contain liquid, but only the snowglobes have been banned from flights.

Confiscating liquids at airport security checkpoints is, of course, the ongoing reaction to the 2006 terrorist plot to bring down airliners with liquid bombs.

But I'm not being totally snarky with my remark about babies containing liquids. We all do, and many of the ingredients for explosive mixtures, such as potassium nitrate, ammonium nitrate and phosphorus, were originally manufactured from putrefied urine, though that process seems a little too complicated to carry out in an airplane lavatory.

So anyway, just consider this blog post a friendly holiday warning to pack your favorite snowglobes in your luggage, and if by chance your wintry tchotchkes mysteriously disappear, look for them on eBay.

Time Out

It must be hoax week.

I was feeling a sort of primal rage as I read this mother's blog post titled TSA agents took my son. The post recounts a terrifying incident where a mother carried her infant son through a metal detector at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson airport and the baby's pacifier clip set off an alarm which then set off a series of shocking events. TSA agents did what nobody should ever attempt with any human or animal -- they took her child. They carried him away out of her sight, and as she screamed, all other security agents ignored her.

Separating a parent from his or her child is explicitly against TSA rules, but I have such a low opinion of airport security that I would not doubt the incompetence. I started to wonder if maybe there was a farm where TSA employees are bred and emerge from their pods looking exactly like humans but devoid of emotions.

But then TSA did something sensible and responded to the story with their own blog post which includes an 11 minute CCTV video of the incident. And it's not at all likes the mother's story!

We see her carry the child through the detector. She's still clutching the child as she waits inside some kind of dehumanizing acrylic holding cell (really, what the hell are those things?). Once security agents are ready to deal with her, she takes a seat still holding her child. Then it appears that an agent pats down the child while he is still on the mother's lap. Then the mother herself places the infant in his stroller and sits back down no more than two feet away from him. The agents take their sweet time patting down the mother, but finally both mother and son are free to go.

We have heard how eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, but this unreliable? Really? Somebody can't accurately remember their own personal experience 24 hours after the event?

I know that recent news stories (balloon boy, I'm looking at you now) don't merit hundreds of hours of MSM coverage, but they do serve as a real world MacGuffin -- something that catches our attention but is not the pertinent part of the story.

The issue here is that in the current era of reality television, some parents will lie, scheme, and shamelessly exploit their own children and the sympathy of others for a fleeting taste of fame and fortune.

Suspicious Pianos

A week ago I was feeling conflicted over defriending an old classmate because he insanely supports torture. Well, hell, this guy just outdid me like a diva:

Poland's Krystian Zimerman, widely regarded as one of the finest pianists in the world, created a furor Sunday night in his debut at Walt Disney Concert Hall when he announced this would be his last performance in America because of the nation's military policies overseas.

Before playing the final work on his recital, Karol Szymanowski’s "Variations on a Polish Folk Theme," Zimerman sat silently at the piano for a moment, almost began to play, but then turned to the audience. In a quiet but angry voice that did not project well, he indicated that he could no longer play in a country whose military wants to control the whole world.
...
Zimerman has had problems in the United States in recent years. He travels with his own Steinway piano, which he has altered himself. But shortly after 9/11, the instrument was confiscated at JFK Airport when he landed in New York to give a recital at Carnegie Hall. Thinking the glue smelled funny, the TSA decided to take no chances and destroyed the instrument.

I think he's referring to the US missile defense agreement with Poland and of course, the US detention camps at Guantanamo Bay. I'm as angry about Guantanamo Bay as he is, but I think he just defriended our whole country which is a little unfair.

But regarding his rant, I've never been to a Zimerman recital, but I've been to a U2 concert so I know all about the brutal lectures from the god(s) on stage. I expect it. I wouldn't want anything less from a passionate and intense artist. And if this becomes a trend, and other performers follow suit, we'll soon find out just how alone we are in the world on these moral issues as we continue to debate the merits of torture rather than prosecute for it.

And hey, what are TSA agents doing sniffing for glue? And how do you tell if glue "smells funny"? I know the DEA finds drugs in many strange places, but in a Steinway owned by a famous musician? And was destroying the piano really the answer?

Are we still keeping that terrorist watch list? Oh, we are. I hope Zimerman didn't talk his way onto it.

Grounded for Life

Today I learned about an important court victory: a federal appeals court ruled that would-be passengers can ask a judge and jury to decide whether their inclusion on the government's secret no-fly list violates their rights. So, who would object to this ruling?

The "no fly list," also known as the "terrorist watch list," is a secret list maintained by the FAA of people who are not permitted to board a commercial aircraft for travel in the United States. The list has swelled to over 1 million names. In the past it has famously included some very unlikely suspects like Nelson Mandela and Edward Kennedy. The list has brainlessly included air marshals hired to protect us. The list has also been used as a political weapon.

So, shouldn't ordinary people (like those who are NOT a Kennedy) be able to challenge their inclusion on the list? Who would be against this recent court ruling? The answer is my father.

For those who don't know me personally, I'm embarrassed to admit that my father is a neocon. I know there is nothing I can do about it. He hasn't always been this way. I think he became more extreme after retirement when he had more time to watch FOX News.

Anyway, his nonsensical argument goes something like this: "I love these people who come to our country and think they can challenge our Constitution. There should be some kind of reciprocal rule. They should only have the rights of their own country when they come here. Then Sharia can apply here and they can be beheaded."

Anyway, I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that's very close to what he said. And when he said "love" he didn't really mean "love." I'm pretty sure the word he was looking for was "hate," but that's typical for Mr. Cranky Pants.

But doesn't his argument leave you with your jaw on the floor? The factual errors are bad enough -- the would-be passenger challenged the no-fly list not our Constitution -- but the saddest mistake in my father's argument is not understanding fundamental human rights -- the ones we call inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are natural rights. They are not granted. They are not conditional. They apply to all humans.

Likewise, justice isn't exclusively for American citizens. If our laws really work, then they work for everybody. If the woman challenging the list is innocent, then she is innocent no matter what her country of origin. And why would any thinking person even dream of legitimizing another country's primitive laws?

I don't know. It's frustrating. I'm a person concerned with our loss of liberties and our government's unchecked power. My father is an authoritarian septuagenarian raised on WW II propaganda and fear of Communism.

Turns out there are some aspects of Communism he really really likes.

We'll All Be Collared

Thanks to Crooks and Liars for reporting on the approaching police state. The Department of Homeland security would really like to put the electric- shock dog collar on all of us for our own good. Ok, I'm just kidding. Actually, it's a bracelet not a collar.

A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers.

This bracelet would:

• take the place of an airline boarding pass
• contain personal information about the traveler
• be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage
• shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes.

I don't think it's a joke, but will the average person submit to this? Sadly and cynically, I think so. Look at the lack of resistance to the very real body-scanning machines installed in several airports. "If it speeds things up and I can keep my shoes on..." seems to be the prevailing sentiment regarding that technology.

But these shock bracelets... certainly people will resist? Or will the straps be colored red white and blue and emblazoned with "Support Our Troops"? This way everybody will know it's their patriotic duty to comply.

But certainly, everybody realizes there will be mistakes. Here is a scenario. Airport security wants to immobilize the obnoxious fist-waving drunk. They click the remote and kill your grandma instead... Which brings me to another question. How does this system work? Is the system set up so one button immobilizes everybody? Because how do you target the terrorist or obnoxious asshole? Ask him for his seat number first? What if the wrong passenger number is punched in?

Regardless, this system cannot make us safer. Here I go thinking like a terrorist again...

Add two new steps to taking over the plane. Step one, remove or disable your shock bracelet. Step two, use your hacked remote to trigger everybody else's bracelet. Then, effortlessly continue with your hijacking now that all the passengers have been immobilized.

Hey, if these bracelets are seen as a triumph in the war on terror, maybe we'll be compelled to wear them all the time. I mean not just at the airport but from cradle to grave. Probably implanted in our skin. Nobody will ever give the government crap again. Nobody will ever protest. Nobody will ever raise their voice. Nobody will ever resist. How could you?

Or how should we?

I see only one valid use for these bracelets. Put them on all politicians when they take office.

X-Ray Vision

Ten U.S. airports are installing new body-scanning machines that produce whole-body images that reveal your most private parts. Feel safer yet?

I certainly don't. With a tiny bit of brainstorming, I can come up with a few holes in this system.

Obese people can hide items under their folds of fat. Skinny people can conceal items in their body cavities. People can simply disguise things in their carry-on bag. Or multiple people can carry on weapon parts to be assembled on-board. And if a suicide-bomber is caught with a device, what's stopping him from detonating it right there in the airport killing hundreds? Keep in mind, I came up with these genius ideas and I'm not even a criminal mastermind.

The alternative to submitting to the indignity of the full body scan is a full body pat down. What baffles me the most is that people don't seem to mind this invasion of privacy. I'm hearing a lot of comments like "well if it speeds things up and I can keep my shoes on..." Are we getting too used to these humiliations? Today the airport, tomorrow the mall.

Another issue is who views these body scans? We are told a security person in a separate room views the image and immediately deletes it. Call me cynical, but I estimate in 6 months a voyeuristic body scan web site will pop up. Viewing primo celebrity shots will cost extra of course. They can call the web site "Security Theater."

Because that's exactly what the airports are creating -- ostentatious displays of expensive technology to give an illusion of safety. But so far the results are more like a dysfunctional sideshow that has cost the economy $26billion.

Flying the not-so-friendly skies is an inherently dangerous adventure. Planes crashed and sometimes exploded long before we were targeted by terrorists. Security measures should concentrate on keeping the bad guys out of the cockpit. That protects the people on the ground. The people on the plane are already taking a calculated risk.