Please read: The TSA is still bad, but the media sometimes isn’t even the media.

I found the above screencap and the quoted commentary on it below via stfuglennbeck (who has since taken it down and it’s still on strikegently at least as of this writing):

yoctavias:

mssswitch

Wait. Wait. Wait. WAIT.

“Goddamn Arab”?!

Thats not racial profiling. Motherfucker. He was jerking off at women athletes. Not a fucking Arab. I dont know how people think they can just get away with saying racist ass shit like that. Like SERIOUSLY?!

(I tend to curse when Im angry, sorry.)

It wasn’t long ago that everyone was screaming about needing more security.
But now we’ve taken it way too far and it’s turning into a sexual/racial issue.

I travel by train/boat/bus/car and I have no intention of getting on an airplane until this is taken care of. You have more privacy at the gynecologist anymore.

Yeah, well, don’t get your X-Ray-proof panties in a bunch about the above article or the image in the screengrab above. It’s a complete fake. I did a Google News search for the headline “Body Scanner Operator Caught Masturbating at Colorado Airport” and got no hits.  Then I did a regular web search and found an article explaining how the image, allegedly of an X-rayed woman, was actually just taken from a stock photography package and then inverted in Photoshop to give it that X-ray flavor.  Then I did a search for the reporter “Hugh Muzzbe” and found hundreds of hits, all on the same article being reposted and reblogged all over the place—but nothing else by him.

I know, I know, you’re thinking: “HUGH MUZZBE KIDDING ME!”

>_<

Does this mean that the X-ray machines and the body searches are any less invasive or any less of a violation of our rights? NOPE.  It just means that, as usual, we have to keep our heads when reading about this stuff—ALWAYS CONFIRM EVERYTHING.  If you’ve read one story in one place, don’t assume it’s accurate until you confirm it with other news sources.

But remember, just because this one image and this one article was faked, it doesn’t mean the TSA isn’t super creepy or at all competent in their job or not violating our rights—they most certainly are all those things.  Alternet.org posted their list of the top 7 creepy things about the TSA and Mythbuster, Adam Savage, just the other day, admitted he walked right through one of the TSA’s machines and then onto a plane to Seattle with two 12-inch razor blades on his person (he carries a lot of weird stuff around with him and forgot he had them).

Oh and the good old fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights promises freedom from unlawful search and seizure.  Last time I checked, the TSA checks are not done by law, but by regulation.  Big difference. I was reminded of this while reading this account of the blogger behind NoBlasters.com being held up by TSA after flying.  Essentially, if you simply ask if you’re under arrest, and they say “no” you can go. I wouldn’t try this, but if you’ve got plenty of money for a lawyer and don’t mind missing your flight…

Ultimately, the moral of the story is that we can’t trust people to do their job, whether they claim to be in the media or that they’re doing it for our own good.

TSA Screening Soaks Bladder Cancer Survivor with His Own Urine

TSA Screening Soaks Bladder Cancer Survivor with His Own Urine

Meant to post this one the other day.  It’s just so messed up when law enforcement/”security” types can’t just be fricken reasonable.  That’s what this whole thing is, by the way, unreasonable.  I think it’s reasonable for some kind of security when you go on a plane.  But assuming everyone is a terrorist until they prove they are not seems to go against everything our country was founded on.

Why the TSA Practices Could Result In Public Rebellion or a Terrorist Attack

Why the TSA Practices Could Result In Public Rebellion or a Terrorist Attack

I don’t think this post on Gizmodo by a former law enforcement officer quite does what the title suggests, but it is definitely a worthwhile read.

In it, the officer suggests that the TSA needs to get their act together and decide what they are really trying to do.  Their procedures are not consistent and not thorough and even then they are intrusive and of questionable use against fighting terror.

I still maintain my position that if we’re going to live in  free country, anything more than metal detectors and X-ray conveyor belts is abusive and an infringement of our human rights to control our bodies.

We can’t trust our authorities to do anything right because they’ve manage to fuck everything up so far.  Not really sure what to say or do about it at this point. 

I mean, the level of hypocrisy here is absurd.  They say they want to protect our lives by making them less free.

I’ll pass, thanks.  Can we at least have the option to fly with an airline that doesn’t jam a snake-cam up our buts?

And my wife and I are supposed to be flying to NoCal during the holidays. :

More on the Morons at TSA and our Government re: full-body scanning and pat-downs/feel-ups.

After I posted about a woman who had both labia touched during a so-called “pat-down” by a TSA operative, I saw a post on lifehacker.com that went into more depth (and included the above pic—I love how the blond TSA guy looks a little flush at the prospect of doing a cavity search on that boy). Anyway, so it’s an interesting post (read it) and it directly addresses whether or not you can refuse to be security-checked:

Can You Refuse These New Measures?

The short answer is no. Once you get to security there’s no turning back. You’re in for some serious consequences if you refuse to participate:

[A]nyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties, the administration said, citing a federal appeals court ruling in support of the rule. The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that “requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by ‘electing not to fly’ on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.

What to Do?

You can opt to sign the We Won’t Fly petition, try methods suggested on Shut Down the Airports, or support organizations like Flyer’s Rights if you feel these new security measures are too invasive and should be removed. On the other hand, if you travel infrequently these measures may not be that big of a deal.

GOTTA LOVE BIG GOVERNMENT!

Do you actually agree with these new TSA rules? Well, if so, ask yourself this:

What are the odds of you or anyone you know actually being killed by a terrorist?

The answer is zero. It doesn’t happen enough to really be able to work out the numbers. Statistically, Americans are never killed by terrorists while flying over American soil. There was ONE TIME when it happened.

What’s really sad is that the terrorists have won.

We don’t live in a free country anymore. If we did I wouldn’t have to have my nads fiddled with just to prove I’m not Osama bin ThePete.

Underpaid Genius - Every Man For Himself

Underpaid Genius - Every Man For Himself

Another great little piece of commentary from Stowe Boyd about how the powers that be have it upside-down and backwards when it comes to getting the economy going again.

My favorite part is the Krugman quote:

But we’re talking about voodoo economics here, so perhaps it’s not surprising that belief in the magical powers of tax cuts is a zombie doctrine: no matter how many times you kill it with facts, it just keeps coming back. And despite repeated failure in practice, it is, more than ever, the official view of the G.O.P.

Yeah, that sounds like the USG to me!

Click the title above to check out the rest of Boyd’s post.

Glenn Greenwald on ending discrimination against same-sex couples" (my opinion, too!)

housingworksbookstore:

“Ending discrimination against same-sex couples is understood as a matter of basic equality, not social progressivism, and it thus commands widespread support. The contrast with the U.S. is quite instructive and depressing.”

—

The U.S., Argentina and gay marriage - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

I don’t even know why we’re talking about it being a matter of “basic equality” when marriage, itself, is an entirely personal and private matter.  The government has no business sanctioning my relationship with the person I choose to love, regardless of their gender.  If we all framed the argument like this, religion and the government would no longer be in the picture, thus gay marriage no more “legal” or “illegal” than gay friendship.

Seriously—why are we letting the government decide whether our relationships, hetero or homo sexual are legitimate or not?  Have you seen some of the countries the United States government has gotten into bed with??

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Puts 104 in Custody on Actual Ice

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Puts 104 in Custody on Actual Ice, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

Not too much to say that this screencap doesn't already say (source ). Since the creation of the INS, over a hundred people in ICE custody have died--10 of which were only exposed thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request. That's a little bit like the old "you never asked!" joke.

Regardless, people who may not even have been guilty of anything at all died in custody and no one seems all that concerned.

Just thought I'd mention it since illegal immigrants probably don't deserve to die just because they broke an immigration law or two.

Just sayin'.

Chances of a WMD Attack in a big city better than 50%??

Grabbed this on my iPhone just now and I have to admit that I don't trust this task force. These guys MUST be lying or hopelessly paranoid. There is no way you could say there's a better than 50/50 chance that a city will get hit by WMD.
 
Of course, bio or chem weapons I could see as being more likely, but still not a 50% chance, but nukes (which are what we all think of first when we hear the letters "WMD")?? No way, man, and reporting this story this way is nothing short of alarmist and fear mongering.
 
Reuters is really doing us a disservice by not making it immediately clear that nukes are much less likely than chem or bio. And even knowing that, when I saw that headline and read that first paragraph, I thought they meant their was a better than even chance that nukes would definitely hit a big city--then reality set in and I remembered how the odds of any random big city being hit are dramatically against.
 
Thanks, Reuters, for making us crap our pants...again!
 
Oh and newsflash: government task forces have been getting it wrong for the last 8 years--probably longer--all the press ever does is highlight the fear and bury the logic. Way to unquestioningly quote the party line and question little-to-nothing.

Posted by email from thepete's posterous