letter to tsa

Published November 20th, 2010 by Bobby Henderson

Click to read my letter to tsa:


14 Responses to “letter to tsa”

  1. ryand says:

    Sign of the times – security theatre goes interactive to entertain the public. I’m definitely going for the pat-down – it sounds great fun. How do you make sure you get one of the more decorative TSA bunnies?

  2. SillyKiwiMan says:

    The most tragic thing is that the goal of terrorism is to cripple through fear. Perhaps crippling hasn’t occurred yet, but the fear sure as hell has.

    I don’t want to be blown to shit, certainly not in the name of some false non-Pastafarian religion, but more than that, I really, REALLY didn’t like being patted down at an airport when I’d fallen asleep on a beach and had 2nd degree sunburn.

    Simple solution, only allow the peaceful, pirate worshipping, well-fed Pastafarians to fly on planes, thereby also reducing the seat-kicking-child phenomenon.

    I suppose one could argue that my overseas travel should be taken by ship (with cannons & grog) if I were truly devout…

  3. Bobby Henderson says:

    In the future we will all travel in tubes.

    • ryand says:

      Don’t we already travel by the intertubes?

  4. Randy says:

    This is the situation: there is one group of religo-crazies who are pissed because they have to be patted down and put through the x-ray machine because other religiously-insane fuckwads want to fly planes into buildings and blow-up shit everywhere to appease their invisible friend “up there”. To the former, don’t sweat it. I can promise you that nobody wants to feel or see your old, overweight bodies. Nobody is getting a thrill from it, so you really shouldn’t think too highly of yourselves. To the latter, I hope your 72 virgins are all old x-tian prudes.

    To both groups of violent fairytale beleivers: if I told people that my car talked to me, I would be called a weirdo, but people have no problem with stone-aged myths of talking snakes, a guy who lived in a whale, a boat which held two of everything, virgin births, and so on. Who ever kills the most people for their fairytale character of choice does not win, you just end up dead.

    And one last thing for the x-tian teatards: You all bitch about the security procedures, but I’ll bet you a stack of by-bulls the next time a muslimoid crashes/blows up a plane you will bitch about how it’s Obama’s fault and there should have been more security.

    • B. says:

      Tho I appreciate the need for security measures, there is a bigger picture here.

      So there’s no limit to where the security procedures go to far? One should just conform to society’s restriction of mobility and integrity in the name of security? This is a slippery slope, Randy. If it was simple enough that there was no balance between security and integrity, no one would even question it. Fact is, that higher security means conditioning integrity and freedom. Sometimes this is warranted and sometimes not, but it remains conditioned and that is the big issue.

    • elroyo says:

      I would blame Obama but not for security or lack thereof. I will blame him for interfering in other countries’ affairs leaving us the target of people that don’t care of others life’s or their own. You can not prevent terrorist threats by creating terrorists. Every drone attack in Pakistan creates more terrorist and believe me they are already here in this country.

      • Noodlity says:

        Obama is quite low on the list of people to blame for the current situation (and I say this as a foreigner who used to root for McCain, if only for the lulz) . The top actually belongs to… [dramatic music]… Ronald Reagan. Y’know – the one who sent CIA agents in Afghanistan, specifically to train the locals for terrorist acts and guerrilla warfare. It was a Cold War thing.

        However, with the war gone, I guess the guys were less than enthusiastic about their forced retirement. Blowing $hit up is good business after all, with lots of demand. Hence, a couple of bombastic public demonstrations at the ex-boss’s house, if only for proper advertizing, leading to “The War on Terror” . Now everyone’s happy… except, y’know, all the people dying on a weekly basis. I have to admit, though, the title is catchy; certainly more than “the war on things we really shouldn’t have done 20 years ago and we’ll be trying to fix for at least another 10″.

        And Iraq… it was an H.W. Bush thing, with junior joining in for tradition’s sake. Same deal, different flavor.

        * * *

        The past cannot be changed, and digging up old skeletons isn’t really helpful – it can provide explanations, but hardly solutions.
        Question is, what to do now? Rather, what not to do. I can suggest a few things. First, don’t blame Obama for the stupid cr@p his predecessors did. Things like that have too great momentum to be fixed by one man, and on such short notice. Second, don’t waste your anger on the zealots on either side. They are, in all senses, tools. Zealotry is not a valid currency on the weapons market. Faith is no substitute for supply chains. Find out what is, and you’ll find your foe.

        Last… don’t lose face. The USA already has had one lost war on foreign soil, again due to the idiocy of its president. But you recovered; admirably, if I might add. And you will recover again. Ten years from now, Afghanistan, Iraq, and whatever else, will be just a memory. A sour memory indeed, but a memory still.

        • Keith says:

          Personally the term “War on Terror” irritates me as it is meaningless. Surely it should be the “War on Terrorism”. There are many terrors in the world (I am terrified of centipedes) but I have not seen any effort by the American war machine to extinguish a single one.

        • Noodlity says:

          The “War on Terrosism” is also quite vague – there’s no general agreement on what consitutes terrorism.

          Then again, that’s more or less the point – to present a shadowy, non-descript enemy, whose defeat is never certain, so that… various three-letter agencies keep receiving funding, supposedly for fighting it. It’s like the Cold War, only without needing the Russians to be the bad guys.

  5. Noodlity says:

    Here’s an idea for an effective security measure against terrorism: when a civilian “totally-not-related-to-the-local-goverment-no-really” paramilitary faction blows up something on your own home soil, it doesn’t actually fall within established rules of engagement. It can honestly be considered an act of Total War, upon which you are well within your right to either send an ultimatum to that respective government to personally bring you the ones responsible on a silver platter, and that’s if you’re feeling really gracious, or send them a list of their own cities to be vaporised with extreme prejudice.

    9/11 Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, the USA should have turned stone to glass instead of trying to play “peacemaker” and sending more good men to the grinder. This is how every other superpower keeps clean of external terrorists – by fear of retribution. By putting the hurt on the other guy’s folks, instead of (literally!) putting your hand on your own guy’s junk, “for their safety”.

  6. Arash says:

    i hope you get your contract Bobby!
    may the sauce oil your way!

  7. Danimal says:

    I’ll only allow myself to be touched by his noodly appendage

  8. clxxxiv says:

    Blame the idiots who put a bomb in his underwear and the knee jerk reaction of the U.S.

    It is only going to get worse from here.

Leave a Reply