File this under "Worst Ideas Ever."
The new head of the Transportation Security Administration, Edmund "Kip" Hawley, recently asked his staff to propose changes to the way the agency screens 2 million passengers daily.
The staff's first set of recommendations, detailed in an Aug. 5 memo and reported Aug. 12 by the Washington Post, includes a proposal to lift the ban on various carry-on items such as scissors, razor blades and knives less than five inches long. The proposal also would allow ice picks, throwing stars and bows and arrows on flights.
Hawley, rather than throwing the suggestion aside, and-or questioning the logic behind it, instead will allow further disussion of the proposal this month, the Post reports.
***
If it bothers you that the TSA is spending your tax dollars to consider ways to make us less safe, consider the reasons behind it.
The Post reports that the "TSA is struggling with new cuts in the screener workforce imposed by Congress while its new leaders hope to improve the agency's poor reputation among air travelers by introducing more customer-friendly measures."
Let's look at that factoid:
1) Why did Congress cut the screener workforce? I don't know. Perhaps it was a misguided response to recent reports that the TSA has been guilty of rampant waste and fraud. Hey, it's important for our government to crack down on such things as the $500,000 spent on art, silk plants and other decorations for a new operations center, but cutting employees whose sole charge is to protect airline passengers does nothing to reduce waste and fraud. Certainly the government should realize that there's a difference between paying for bad employees and cutting needed staff, right? Using that logic would be like dumping your car because of a flat tire.
How could President Bush have approved the TSA budget? What are his priorities as he tells Americans, over and over, that "we're safer" under his helm?
2) How is it "customer-friendly" to allow scissors, razor blades, small knives, ice picks, throwing stars and bows and arrows on flights? Is there a great need to cut things, shave, pick ice, practice martial arts or target practice on a moving flight? Would you allow these things into an elementary school? Would you allow them into a packed stadium? Of course not. It would make no sense — those things serve no purpose in those settings. Equally, they serve no purpose on an airplane.
Not surprising, the Post was able to find at least one security analyst to praise the agency's proposal, saying that security screeners spend too much time trying to find nail scissors and not enough time focused on today's biggest threat: a suicide bomber boarding an airplane.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Aaman
Funny - they've got all that pork and they are reducing the grilling, pun intended.
Make this Laird guy the Head of HS - he's got his head on his shoulders,
2 - RJ
Ahem. Just for the record, it is the Congress, not the White House, that writes these laws and decides where to spend our money, and how much of it to spend.
The White House can only sign or veto legislation. And Bush doesn't veto anything.
So, blame the Congress.
3 - David R. Mark
I blame the Congress, but Bush -- the fiscal conservative -- could prevent pork-laden bills from passing (he vowed to fight pork, but oh well) and he could have made sure that the money was there for TSA screeners and equipment (as he tells us over and over how safe we all are).
4 - Dave Nalle
Well, if we're going to let all that stuff back on, I say let's let everyone carry guns. That should take care of the terrorist problem once and for all.
Dave
5 - RJ
Bush would look like a complete jackass if he vetoed legislation coming from a Congress that is controlled (in both Houses) by his own party.
So, blame Bush all you want. But it is the contemporary political status-quo that is really to blame.
6 - TB
As a former TSA screener who went on to work for another federal agency out of total disgust with the way the TSA was and is being mismanaged by corrupt higher ups, this comes as no suprise to me. What bull crap is right. But then Thousands Standing Around was and will forever be, one of the worst agencies ever conceived. When you have bottom feeders like David Stone running it, what do you expect (BTW, Stone left LAX under very quick and nefarious circumstances....something about a huge IRS CID audit finding there were millions missing from LAX TSA coffers...and more...).
7 - ryanclarkholiday
good post. serious.
8 - gonzo marx
damned fine Post..and some interesting things in the comments...
RJ sez..
*So, blame the Congress.*
wow..i was floored reading this , considering the source...kewlio...now maybe we can get at least one part of the government NOT under GOP control
in 2006 let's all vote gridlock, so we can rest easier and keep those meddlesome pigfuckers in Dc under some semblance of control...
then Mr Nalle sez..
*I say let's let everyone carry guns.*
just what we want on an airplane..everyone with a gun...
can you say "explosive decompression at 50,000 feet" ?
i knew ya could
/rolls eyes
Excelsior!
9 - WayneLBurnham
Well at last I finally got a direct glimpse into the minds of paranoid libs...wow...
Are you at all aware a good third of Americans will never fly again? Not because of their paranoid cowardice but because they will not allow themselves to be humiliated by a bunch of low end security guards - because they have enough self respect they refuse to be groped, molested, stripped and otherwise treated like prison vermin.
The real thing is why the hell can't people carry knives on a damned plane?
Our punitive wars against Afghanistan and Iraq are our preventative measure against these evil religious fanatics - if they do another stunt like that look for the glowing mushroom cloud where there satanic "holy sites" used to be. That's how we stopped the Russians from eating Europe (and us) until their evil system imploded. Notice there are no thuggi murder sprees today in India? We can thank the otherwise evil British Army for eradicating that threat 150 years ago - by killing anyone who demonstrably acted on their perverted religious insanity.
I guess this cowardly acceptance of "oh please Mr. Royal Jelly fed policeman... PROTECT me! I'll let you fondle my teenage daughter and rape my wife if you tell me I'm safe because they didn't have explosive shoes!" is expectable from a culture that prevented the common lowly person from even carrying a simple handgun in most states for a century, while enabling an army of 16 week wonder authority freaks to harrass and steal from anyone who speeds on a highway and at the same time giving multiple murderers 5 years in prison and automatic welfare as soon as they serve 1/3 of that time.
Instead of worrying about the illusury threats of somebody with a pocket knife, which everybody carried for 75 years of aviation, you could more worry about TSA dragging their ass on letting the damned pilots and stews have a damned pistol without having to join the damned waffen SS.
Boxcutters didn't down our airliners - a group of evil freaks did combined with no one expecting it. But that didn't even last to the end of one day, when the heroic common people you are so afraid of having toenail clippers paid their lives to stop that last flight.
Go ahead and rail against Bush for whatever you want - you said we "Klinton Bashed" when we railed against his admin killing off the odd hundred American cultists in his little war against civil arms ownership, but I suppose it's fair. My mian problem with Bush is why he appointed one of YOUR libs to head this whole Department and interfere with Congress' overwhelming decision to maybe, just maybe allow the ex-military officer flying the plane to have a simple pistol like these minimum wage security guards. He screwed up there but at least more than made up for it with the fantastic choice of Condi for State.
You should learn to respect and trust your countrymen, not cower in fear one of them might have a sharp object - your life in this island of freedom in this decidedly evil world depends on them and they will not let you down the way your veiws have let them down every time they are humiliated by these security fascists, looking for box cutters on a "murderous threat" grandma.
10 - Dave Nalle
>>can you say "explosive decompression at 50,000 feet" ?<<
A pistol with normal ammunition will not cause explosive decompression. It's a total myth.
That said, I was kind of joking about the guns.
On the other hand, I've been allowed to carry a weapon far more dangerous than a small knife on every plane I've been on since 9/11 - an old Mac laptop with a built in handle, which could easily be used as a weapon since it's heavy enough to crush skulls when swung by the handle.
Dave
11 - MSG John
When the passengers on the one flight tried to fight back, I can guarantee one of the questions they would have asked each other was "who has a knife?"
I can also guarantee you that carrying weapons onto flights is a hell of a lot easier than you might think. It is not uncommon for me to have several when I fly.
Consider these: Disposable ball point pens. Credit cards with a sharpened edge. Knapped "Indian" knives of bone, sinew/leather, and obsidian. Ceramic knives with plastic handles (becoming more and more popular in kitchens). Those are but a few.
12 - Victor Plenty
Maybe the TSA has stumbled onto a brilliant idea. Let's issue knives, ice picks, throwing stars and bows and arrows to every passenger as they board each flight.
If someone tries to start trouble, the rest of the passengers will stick him so full of pointy objects, it'll take DNA samples and dental records to identify him afterwards.
Letting people bring guns on board is riskier than that. Despite Dave's assurances, you never know when somebody's going to load teflon-coated rounds or something, and one of those could find its way to a window.
13 - MSG John
Teflon coated bullets are no greater danger to anyone or anything than uncoated bullets. And Dave is correct, it would take a lot more than a bullet hole to cause explosive decompression.
14 - MSG John
P.S. People already carry firearms on board. They are called Federal Air Marshals and some pilots and crew members are allowed to carry firearm
15 - Dave Nalle
A teflon coated round would actually do less damage to the plane than other forms of ammunition. I'm not sure if even they're powerful enough, but some sort of mercury tipped or actual exploding bullet would be the minimum needed to cause a real crisis aboard a modern plane.
Dave
16 - MSG John
Actually a "mercury tipped" bullet (a creation of Hollywood) or any other expanding or frangible bullet would likely not cause any more damage nor cause explosive decompression. It would take a lot of shots in the same area or an explosive device to cause that kind of damage. About the smallest caliber of actual explosive round is the .50 BMG firing a Raufuss round (not availible to civilians), and trust me, anyone running around in an airplane with a .50 BMG is going to 1) be noticed and 2) the firearm is so long, heavy, and unwieldy they will likely never get a shot off.
17 - Dave Nalle
That's what I was thinking, John, but I was racking my brain for anything that might make a big enough hole or do enough damage to cause explosive decompression. As I understand it actual explosive bullets are unreliable and difficult to manufacture. As for the 'not available to civilians' issue, you'd be amazed at what some home gunsmiths can come up with,
Dave
18 - MSG John
"As for the 'not available to civilians' issue, you'd be amazed at what some home gunsmiths can come up with,"
Trust me, I am well aware.
19 - Dave Nalle
So you know about the advances in polymer guns then, I imagine. Which makes all these scanning procedures fairly meaningless.
Dave
20 - MSG John
Polymers can't stand up to the pressures, heat and friction of the chamber of a firearm. You have to use some metal. For example, the "plastic" Glock is 80% metal. The undetectable plastic firearm is a myth. Also consider all the other parts and the ammo. Throw in the back-scatter scanning machines and any alert screener will be able to pick up on a firearm.
21 - Dave Nalle
I heard that you could make a polymer pistol with multiple single-use barrels which could handle a low-velocity round and be good for about three shots. Given all the amazing materials we've come up with it's hard to believe there's nothing that can stand in for metal.
Dave
22 - MSG John
You might get a single shot out of a polymer chambered firearm, but a second attempt would be playing Russian Roulette. Even low velocity round develop some impressive chamber pressures. Polymers are too soft and elastic. Even with a .22LR, attempts have always ended up using a steel chamber sleeve. Ditto barrels. Polymers just cannot take the abuse. Ceramics hold promise as far as hardness, but are generally too brittle. And you need steel for springs. There are a lot of amazing materials out there, but steel is the most amazing of them all.
Nope, the undetectable gun is still a long way away.
23 - homer
Stop all Carry on luggage entirely. You don't need it for the next few hours. Sit in your seat and shut up. read a magazine supplied by the airline.
24 - Dave Nalle
Then you get to sit next to my 3 year old deprived of her video player for 3 hours. Enjoy.
Dave
25 - David R. Mark
I guess the question is, why tempt fate?
And if they've come up with a gun that can make it through a metal detector, then it's time to come up with a better detector. But, as I pointed out above, the funding has been cut for those, too.