ChrisWeigant.com

An Immodest Proposal

[ Posted Monday, November 22nd, 2010 – 17:41 PST ]

[With apologies, of course, to Dean Jonathan Swift.]

The Transportation Safety Administration (T.S.A.) is now finding out what it is like to be caught as the bad guy in a viral video. Corporations now take this sort of thing seriously, ever since an airline smashed a flier's guitar and got lambasted for it in an online video (which turned out to be wildly popular). But the T.S.A. is a government agency, meaning that the normal corporate defenses (a vast P.R. campaign, for starters) are not likely to do much good. The People (well, some of them...) are absolutely fed up, and they're demanding change, after all. However, the fickle nature of public opinion means that if security is loosened and a plane blows up as a direct result, The People will then be screaming "Why didn't you keep us safe?!?" It seems an unsolvable problem, which is why I write today in the hopes of offering a constructive new idea to the debate.

A quick review of the problem is necessary to understand all the complexities involved. In the early days of aviation, Americans who flew commercial flights did not have to surrender their Fourth Amendment rights in order to do so. They were not searched in any way. This all changed in the 1970s, with a wave of hijackings. Some people, knowing they wouldn't be searched, carried weapons onto planes and then threatened to use these weapons in order to hold the plane hostage. These people hijacked planes for various reasons -- some political, some merely monetary (collecting a ransom to let everyone go, for the most part).

The American government reacted by forcing everyone getting on board a plane to walk through a metal detector before doing so. Although blatantly unconstitutional on the face of it, this was grudgingly accepted by the flying public so they wouldn't have to endure their plane being hijacked by other travelers.

But these early hijackings now seem almost quaint, in our post-9/11 world. When terrorists took over four planes to use as weapons, armed with nothing more than boxcutters, something obviously had to change. Since this point in time, security at airports has waxed and waned. Announcements of what will no longer be allowed on airplanes were followed by minor outrages, and in some cases, security was dialed back a bit. But since then, several other attempts have been made to blow up planes in midair. With each attempt (so far, thankfully, unsuccessful), the flying public has had to accept new rules designed to prevent (for instance) shoe bombs.

But last Christmas, a terrorist tried to explode a bomb hidden in his underwear. Eleven months later, new machinery has been introduced to, essentially, digitally strip-search passengers at the security checkpoint. If people refuse to use these new machines, then they are given a seriously aggressive pat down, which (in just about any other circumstance) would constitute sexual assault.

This was captured on a cell phone, and the media breathlessly picked it up and has not stopped talking about it since. "Don't touch my junk!" is the new rallying cry. One wonders if this is due to the fact that it allows the media to show faux pornography on screen at every possible opportunity; but for whatever reason, it is the hot issue of the day among the chattering classes.

But the feds -- from Obama on down -- are in a serious pickle. They know that the easy thing to do would be to just back down, and stop touching people's junk. But, unfortunately for them, this would leave everyone (and their junk) just as vulnerable to underwear bombs as we all were last Christmas. And if a disaster happened, the T.S.A. (and everyone on up to Obama) would be blamed for not providing security to the public. The public is damning them for the junk-touching, but the public would be just as quick to damn them for not providing the best security possible if a tragedy happened.

Which is why I'd like to offer a modest proposal. Actually, to be strictly correct and technically accurate, I should say an immodest proposal -- that everyone should have to fly naked. Immediately ban all clothing of any kind from all flights, in order to reach a one-hundred percent rate of security against clothing bombs. This would be the ultimate in security for the flying public, and therefore should be our new policy for every commercial flight.

Now, some will complain that this violates privacy. Well, yes, it does. But how important is privacy when you are being sucked out of a hole blown in the side of an airliner at 30,000 feet? The public will grumble, but will eventually see the infallible logic behind such a plan. Planes cannot be blown up by clothing bombs if there is no clothing. Q.E.D.

To be completely effective, there will be no exceptions made. Well, OK, except for the pilots -- we'll give them a break, since as has already been pointed out in this debate, a pilot doesn't need any external device to cause a plane to crash. But everyone else in the section of the airport beyond the security gates will be barred from wearing a stitch of clothing.

Some might argue for a somewhat-less-drastic rule, such as forcing people to strip down just to their underwear. But this would not guarantee safety, since some feminine underclothing contains wires (which could be used as a weapon) and since the entire reason for the heightened security was a bomb concealed in underwear. Forcing passengers to remove their underwear but keep their outer clothing on (the "commando" option) would also be ineffective, since bombs can be hidden in many different articles of clothing, both under- and outer-wear.

No, the only possible answer is to ban it all. Total safety can only be achieved with a total ban, after all.

The airlines themselves will resist this plan, undoubtedly. They will make the case that their businesses will go broke because much of the public will refuse to fly if they are forced to disrobe. This, however, does not take into account the fact that they will be attracting an entirely new class of customer -- the exhibitionists and voyeurs. By my hasty back-of-the-envelope calculation, the airlines' lost revenue from the timid and the shy will be more than made up by the increased revenues from fraternity houses alone. There may be some collateral economic damage, as the Girls Gone Wild company goes out of business due to all its "actresses" now catching a quick flight whenever they feel the urge to expose themselves, but the airlines themselves should easily survive the economic change.

In fact, new pricing structures may be necessary, in order for each airline to distance itself from the competition. Since the flight attendants will all be nude from now on, a premium will be placed on hiring the most attractive. Enticing attractive customers (in order to entice the unattractive with some pleasant onboard scenery, so to speak) will also spur airlines to offer new discounts or upgrades (perhaps "free drinks for hunks and hotties" or some such...).

Nudism, or "naturism" as it is today more properly called, has a long and distinguished history. This subculture will become more widely accepted, as the skies become a clothing-free zone. Naturist resorts and nude beaches have always been around, and they will have an opportunity to become better known to the mainstream public. Wholesome family-oriented naturism may even become the next fad to go viral, who knows?

Of course, initially, there will be much ribald commentary and embarrassed giggling, but this phase will soon pass. Upon entering the security section of the airport (discreetly blocked from view, of course, from the public area), passengers will be able to disrobe with dignity, pack their clothing into checked baggage (which will also be screened, of course), and head to their gate to catch their flight. Security will become easier, since a quick walk through a metal detector will identify any hidden weapons. No pat downs will even be necessary, just a quick glance will do.

As for the embarrassment, ask anyone who has been to a nude beach -- when everyone is walking around naked, the thrill of seeing a nude body quickly evaporates. When everybody's naked, it's the person wearing clothes who actually gets uncomfortable, because they are the ones who do not "fit in" with the norm. And when every single person is walking around unclothed, the novelty factor wears off almost immediately.

This plan will also have a hidden benefit -- the terrorists will hate it. They'll hate it for our licentiousness, but mostly they'll hate it because it will be very effective at keeping their bombs off our planes. And not just the clothing bombs which will become impossible in the naked skies, either. The next logical step for terrorist suicide bombers will be internal bombs. Either body-cavity bombs or even surgically-implanted bombs, which have already be utilized in a recent case in Saudi Arabia.

But because of their culture -- which is strict in its interpretation of modesty, to say the least -- terrorists will be deterred from attempting to bomb a plane. Psychologically, this weakness (terrorists' modesty) has already been exploited by the United States during interrogations of suspected-terrorist prisoners, at Abu Graib and elsewhere. Since this is known to be an effective tool against terrorists, it should be deployed against them. Use the fact that most terrorists would rather die than be seen naked in public as a serious deterrent to them ever flying in a commercial airline again.

This angle can be useful in presenting the idea to the American public, as well. A well-orchestrated campaign should roll out the slogan: "Fly naked -- or the terrorists win!" and be used to convince everyone that it is their patriotic duty to disrobe. Ancillary slogans can also be developed to strengthen this in the public's mind -- "Naked... and safe!" for instance.

This modest (and immodest) proposal seems to me to be the only completely effective answer to the problem of airport security and clothing bombs. Since the American public's willingness to listen to reason and logic is known throughout the world as being second to none, it should be quite easy to convince everyone of the superiority of this small change in airport security policy. It will answer the public plea to stop the T.S.A. from invasively groping (or even sexually assaulting) people at checkpoints. No groping will be necessary ever again -- because clothing-based bombs will become a thing of the past.

Of course the cynical will denounce this plan as being some sort of satirical suggestion not meant to be taken seriously, but they're the types of people who point out that so far, all the clothing bomb attempts that have happened have boarded their flights overseas -- meaning that U.S. airport security has less to do with our safety than how security is handled in European or African airports. They're likely also to be the type of people who point out the intense lobbying effort the manufacturers of the full-body scanners unleashed on Congress to convince everyone that they were the best answer to the problem, and not (say) chemical explosive residue testing, which hasn't gotten nearly the same amount of funding.

But to such critics I say: "let no man talk to me of other expedients." Quite obviously, clothing bombs are a clear and present danger to the flying public. Lesser schemes for thwarting such nefarious plans will always, at their core, contain a serious flaw -- the clothing itself. If the clothes are allowed to remain on the passenger, then the danger also remains. Instead, by removing the clothing from the flying public, the problem itself is removed as well. You cannot hide a bomb in what is not allowed to exist. Any other security method proposed fall short of this hundred-percent certainty rate. One T.S.A. agent, in the future, could -- with a mere look around a room -- be assured that everyone was safe from clothing bombs. Anyone wearing clothing (other than the pilots, of course) would stick out like a sore thumb in a corridor full of naked people, and be absurdedly easy to spot.

So I sincerely hope that in the very near future (say, next week) we will all be flying the naked skies, blissfully unencumbered of anything which could hide a bomb. In no time at all, the public will embrace the new practice, and accept it fully as the next logical step towards utter safety for everyone. Naked flying will become as familiar as walking through a metal detector did when they were first introduced. Flying naked will absolutely guarantee everyone safety, from the time they disrobe before boarding their flight to the time they reclaim their baggage at their destination (safely!) and, with dignity, don clothing to re-enter the non-flying part of society. Everyone's safety will be completely assured, and any embarrassment will quickly start to be seen as being unpatriotic. We all want to be safe while flying. The best way to assure this is to ban clothing entirely. To quote the learnéd philosopher Ellen Ripley, "It's the only way to be sure."

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

29 Comments on “An Immodest Proposal”

  1. [1] 
    fstanley wrote:

    Immodest indeed! I only hope that we all get issued clean seat covers each trip because I for one do not want to sit my naked self down were someone else's naked body has been...eww

    ...Stan (fully clothed!)

  2. [2] 
    akmark wrote:

    Even if all flyers and crew fly entirely naked after a full body x-ray, cavity search, and monitored bowel movement, we cannot prevent commercial aircraft from being blown out of the sky. There are simply too many vectors for attack.

    Actually a much better answer is realistic and workable security, instead of security theater, coupled with the clear understanding that everyone dies from something. There is risk to flying as there is to crossing the street.

    Nude scans, as pointed out by the Government Accounting Office and Israeli security experts, will not improve airline security.

    It will, however, assist in the further harassment of recreational drug users (not a TSA mandate, but a large part of their actual work) and in improperly tracking and seizing cash being carried on commercial aircraft, also unrelated to the TSA mission, but of great value to the Federal Government.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    If people refuse to use these new machines, then they are given a seriously aggressive pat down, which (in just about any other circumstance) would constitute sexual assault.

    I would dispute this..

    In all claims of sexual assault, battery or simple assault, two elements are missing.

    Legality and Intent..

    To quote the learnéd philosopher Ellen Ripley, "It's the only way to be sure."

    Don't tease me!! :D Kudos on the movie quote..

    But in your tongue in cheek commentary, you hit upon the one thing, the very thing that really pisses me off about this whole issue...

    Everyone screams and whines and cries about this and everyone is saying, "there has to be a better way!"...

    But NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has come up with any better way...

    Except for you, of course. :D Well, me too..

    I have suggested a long time ago, we need those X-Ray Scanners from TOTAL RECALL. Then NO ONE can complain about any porn or nekkid-ness...

    And yer dead on balls accurate about the hypocrisy of all this..

    The ones who are screaming the loudest about the searches and the nekkid scanners would be the ones screaming the loudest when a plane is blown from the sky...

    It will be interesting to see if the government bends on this.. I'm sure the Obama administration will cave like the political animal it is.

    That's what I liked about Bush. HE would have said, "This is the way it's going to be. Saving yer ass, whether you like it or not. Deal with it."

    Michale.....

    46

  4. [4] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Now this is just below the ... err ... belt, CW!

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the clothes are allowed to remain on the passenger, then the danger also remains.

    I know you meant this tongue in cheek, but there is a certain reality to this.

    Liquid explosives can be secreted into the fibers of clothing. Fortunately most of these do give off a distinctive odor that can be detected thru conventional sniffer technology.

    But not all. Plus there are masking agents available to thwart sniffer technology.

    The hardest part is not the explosives, but rather the detonator..

    A good security method is simply to render all passengers unconscious for the duration of the flight..

    Even that is not fool proof as you have have a human bomb with explosives AND detonators surgically implanted with a timer...

    This whole problem DOES have an easy, safe and 99.99% effective solution.

    Follow the Israeli model.

    There is a reason why El Al is the safest airline on the planet.

    But NOOOOOOOOOOO Gods forbid we might actually hurt a terrorists' feelings by profiling...

    The blame for our current predicament lies utterly and completely at the feet of the Left due to their illogical and irrational intransigence against profiling..

    Michale.....

    48

  6. [6] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In all seriousness, there was someone on the news who had developed scanner technology which would obfuscate the said nekkid individual being scanned so that it didn't look like some kind of goth pornography.

    It sounded brilliant. TSA wanted nothing to do with it 5 years ago.

    -David

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    It sounded brilliant. TSA wanted nothing to do with it 5 years ago.

    Got a link?? I don't doubt you, but I would like to read up on it..

    Michale.....

    53

  8. [8] 
    Americulchie wrote:

    Chris
    I for one adore any literary reference;I have always considered them a secret code;but never mind.
    So are you really suggesting that as we contemplate slipping the surly bonds of Earth;that we also slip out of the erm bondage of clothing?I for one though a liberal maintain a healthy respect for the Fourth Amendment.
    I think that all of this hysteria points up my contention that Americas first universal characteristic is one of universal hysteria.I think in reality it is time to repeal the ill named Patriot Act.

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Somehow, I just knew you'd be the one to spot the Ripley quote. I threw in a quote from the original "A Modest Proposal" too, for the literary set to spot.

    I also threw the Ripley quote in just in case anyone accused me of being serious here. Because the full quote is a marvelous example of "overkill"... which is exactly what the situation called for, but Ripley was the one with the cojones to point it out:

    "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

    :-)

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Americulchie,

    I think in reality it is time to repeal the ill named Patriot Act.

    And replace it with.... what???

    Shirley, you don't want to give Terrorists free reign??

    As an aside, that joke just misses something when typed out. :D

    "The threat is real. I repeat, the threat is verified and it is real."
    -Government Flunky, UNDER SEIGE

    Michale.....

    54

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Americulchie -

    I also included the line, just in case anyone tried to take me seriously:

    "Since the American public's willingness to listen to reason and logic is known throughout the world as being second to none..."

    Heh. You simply can't read that without identifying it as satire, no matter what your politics. Heh heh.

    Having said that, though, I also think the public has the ability to adjust faster than people think to bizarre situations, at times. Anyone who lived through WWII knows we're all capable of radical lifestyle changes when seen as necessary by the public.

    The most amusing description of my above scenario is found in Robert A. Heinlein's "The Puppet Masters." The movie was crap, the book is excellent. It's an alien invasion-of-the-body snatchers type of storyline (came out in the 1950s, I believe). The aliens are grey "slugs" which attach themselves to your spine and start controlling humans. To combat this, the public is forced to wear skimpy clothing. When the slugs counter by all sorts of sneaky means, "Operation Sun Tan" begins, and the free parts of America (those not taken over by the aliens) go nudist. Like I said, it's an interesting scenario....

    -CW

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think in reality it is time to repeal the ill named Patriot Act.

    And, for the record, I think that constitutes a "button push".. :D

    Michale.....

    55

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    To quote the learnéd philosopher Ellen Ripley, "It's the only way to be sure."

    Come to think of it, so does this! :D

    Michale.....

    56

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    akmark,

    As I do with all JEEPS.....

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    Don't worry, you'll get used to it. :D

    Even if all flyers and crew fly entirely naked after a full body x-ray, cavity search, and monitored bowel movement, we cannot prevent commercial aircraft from being blown out of the sky. There are simply too many vectors for attack.

    True, but there isn't any reason to make it EASY to do...

    "The only people flying to the mid east ARE terrorists.. 'Will you be sitting in ARMED or UN-ARMED?? In case of cabin seizure, a small gun will fall from ceiling compartment. Grab it, run to the front of the plane and claim it in the name of allah' "
    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    Actually a much better answer is realistic and workable security,

    Sorry, can't do that. The Left gets all hysterical about profiling..

    coupled with the clear understanding that everyone dies from something. There is risk to flying as there is to crossing the street.

    I reject this completely..

    "Sorry, it's just too damn inconvenient to keep ya'all safe. By flying, you acknowledge and accept that you will likely be killed in a terrorist attack."

    What needs to be clearly understood is that a person's life is infinitely more valuable than some arbitrary, subjective and/or situationally dependent "principles"..

    Nude scans, as pointed out by the Government Accounting Office and Israeli security experts, will not improve airline security.

    It WILL "improve" it. It just won't make it foolproof...

    What will "improve" security even more is profiling.. But that's already been shot down...

    It will, however, assist in the further harassment of recreational drug users (not a TSA mandate, but a large part of their actual work) and in improperly tracking and seizing cash being carried on commercial aircraft, also unrelated to the TSA mission, but of great value to the Federal Government.

    Can't argue with the logic here.. :D Nor can I condemn the TSA for catching more lawbreakers... :D

    But it's all really simple... We have 3 choices..

    1. Relax all security procedures so that the public is happy and watch airplanes start falling out of the sky..

    2. Continue on as we are and the public will eventually get used to it..

    3. Phase out aggressive pat downs and scans, while phasing in a rigorous profiling regime that will actually enhance airport security...

    I would prefer #3, but I'll settle for #2...

    Michale.....

    57

  15. [15] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Got a link?? I don't doubt you, but I would like to read up on it.

    This wasn't the technology from the original inventor, but was mentioned in the story. The idea is similar. In this case, show a stick figure w/ any identified foreign objects.

    http://www.newser.com/story/105689/boston-first-to-receive-g-rated-scanners.html

    Of course, I'm sure they could find a way to make a stick figure dirty :)

    -David

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    This wasn't the technology from the original inventor, but was mentioned in the story. The idea is similar. In this case, show a stick figure w/ any identified foreign objects.

    I am sure that software could be written to take the raw data and make a "composite sketch" of the subject, rather than displaying the raw video..

    The problem is that there would be people who would complain about THAT as well..

    Let's face it. Americans just LOVE to complain about something.. Especially if the government is involved...

    I put the question to a bunch of people at a local FL Newspaper blog..

    I asked if they would prefer to be searched in this fashion or if they would prefer to be dead..

    Many said they would rather be dead...

    More power to them. If they want to make such an utterly ridiculous choice, that is their right.

    But they DON'T have the right to impose such whacked out priorities on other people..

    Michale.....

    58

  17. [17] 
    Americulchie wrote:

    Michale
    I thought all you conservative types were in love with the Constitution;I am a liberal and I adore said document.I am particularly fond of the Fourth Amendment;especially where it states we should be secure in our persons from warrantless searches.Finally I would remind you of what the great Benjamin Franklin said"For those who prefer security above liberty;you deserve neither.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Americulchie,

    Oh where to begin.. :D

    I thought all you conservative types were in love with the Constitution;I am a liberal and I adore said document.

    The US Constitution is not a suicide pact. It's a document that MUST be tempered with the realities of the world we live in.. The freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution are not absolute..

    For example, you can't yell FIRE!! in a crowded theater (unless, of course, there IS a fire) even though the US Constitution guarantees you freedom of speech.

    Why can't you?? Because the freedom must be tempered with common sense. Exercising this freedom in this manner would create a situation whereas innocent people could be hurt or killed.

    Ergo, your rights end where Public Safety begins...

    All things being equal, Public Safety ALWAYS trumps The Bill Of Rights...

    Always....

    Finally I would remind you of what the great Benjamin Franklin said"For those who prefer security above liberty;you deserve neither.

    Actually, what ole' Ben said was, "Those who give up an essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    So, let's examine that..

    Define "essential" liberty? Is it essential that everyone pass thru airport security un-molested give that such a pass could result in the deaths of hundreds or thousands of innocent people??

    Given the possible results, "essential" takes on a whole different meaning..

    Is not being inconvenienced such an "essential" liberty given the probable consequences??

    I don't think so...

    Now, let's look at the phrase "temporary safety".. How do you define "temporary"?? Well, dictionary.com defines it thus:

    lasting, existing, serving, or effective for a time only; not permanent: a temporary need; a temporary job.

    Now, I don't know about you, but I am thinking that almost 10 years without a successful terrorist attack on US Proper is NOT what Franklin meant when he said "temporary".

    If you want complete and unregulated freedoms, then you have to accept the consequences of OTHER people having complete and unregulated freedoms.

    And such consequences could be tragic, as we saw on 11 Sep 2001...

    Michale......

    59

  19. [19] 
    Americulchie wrote:

    Michale
    Mon Ami I have a life long aversion to touching or being touched by a stranger;If I wanted to be a prisoner I would have become a criminal.For most of my life I worked in a career which demanded that I learned to read people;it is really a simple matter of observation; a nearly 60 year old person is unlikely to be a threat to take down an airplane on which they are flying;yet I have been detained from boarding planes consistently because it is easier to screen people that travel alone.I put up would put up with the nonsense because I wanted to get on an airplane.I say again I resent being treated like a criminal in my own country;the whole thing is to put it in crass terms is bollochs;literally and figurativly.I adore the Fourth Amendment.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mon Ami I have a life long aversion to touching or being touched by a stranger;

    Then you will simply have to stay out of High Security areas such as airports and the like...

    a nearly 60 year old person is unlikely to be a threat to take down an airplane on which they are flying

    And once word gets around that authorities are ignoring 60 year old people, how long do you think it will take the terrorists to find 60 year old people willing to blow themselves and hundreds of other people up??

    Don't think it can happen? I can assure you, over 2 decades in the field have proven to me it CAN happen, it DOES happen.

    The minute the good guys start making exceptions, that's then the bad guys start exploiting them..

    I say again I resent being treated like a criminal in my own country;

    What's the alternative??

    Letting the REAL criminals get buy with the tools and the trade to kill hundreds of innocent people??

    Is your comfort worth that??

    I know that mine isn't...

    I adore the Fourth Amendment.

    And I simply am ecstatic about the First Amendment.

    That doesn't mean I can scream "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater..

    Strange how any Constitutional discussions from the Left seem to ignore that one itty bitty, but oh so relevant, point.. :D

    Michale.....

    60

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you are right and I am wrong, what happens??

    A bunch of people are inconvenienced and/or embarrassed..

    But what happens if *I* am right and *YOU* are wrong??

    Hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent people could die..

    Color me silly, but it seems to be a no-brainer of a choice...

    Michale.....

    61

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    And another point to consider.

    These new directives are being instituted by a Democratic Party government and President Obama.

    The Chosen One...

    "Now that's a hint and a half for your ass.
    -Eddie Murphy, DELIRIOUS

    Michale.....

    62

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I am wont to do, let's see if we can find some common ground here..

    Can we agree that curtailment of constitutionally protected freedoms in the interests of public safety is both logical and desirable?

    Can we agree on that much?

    Michale.....

    65

  24. [24] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Capt. Benjamin Franklin Pierce: Why don't you just drop an atomic bomb.
    Colonel Flagg: Don't try to make friends now.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Capt. Benjamin Franklin Pierce: Why don't you just drop an atomic bomb.
    Colonel Flagg: Don't try to make friends now.

    hehehehehehehehehe

    Now THAT was funny!!! :D

    Michale.....

    66

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, given your hilarious quote, I think it's safe to assume that you agree..

    That sometimes curtailment of constitutionally protected freedoms IS necessary for Public Safety.

    I mean, it's not a huge deal. Such a concept has been widely accepted since the SCOTUS ruling limiting Freedom Of Speech, IE yelling FIRE in a crowded theater example.

    So, we're all on the same page so far.

    Right??

    Michale.....

    67

  27. [27] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So, we're all on the same page so far.

    Right??

    I wouldn't misconstrue humor as anything other than an attempt to leaven the mood.

    Me personally, it's hard not to find a lot of humor in this whole TSA situation. As a metaphor, I think it's quite emblematic of what our country has become.

    Cheers
    David

    Colonel Flagg: I've got to nip this guy in the bud. This sort of behavior is contagious, you know. One guy decides he's not gonna fight anymore, it catches on, and pretty soon you know what we've got?
    B.J.: Peace?

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Me personally, it's hard not to find a lot of humor in this whole TSA situation. As a metaphor, I think it's quite emblematic of what our country has become.

    So, what's your solution? :D

    The kind of peace that BJ is talking about only works if everyone feels and thinks the same..

    That is not the world we live in.

    Sad, but true..

    Michale.....

    69

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Has it occurred to anyone that it's possible that the Obama administration has credible information regarding a potential threat and that these enhanced searches are a means to stop attacks??

    I mean, seriously. Doesn't your own chosen President deserve the benefit of the doubt??

    Michale.....

    72

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]