We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Homeland idiocy

The bureaucratic mind at work, from the WSJ Political Diary:

“Before deploying from Savannah, Georgia to Iraq by a chartered airliner, the troops of the 48th Brigade Combat Team, a National Guard unit, had to go through the same security checks as any other passengers. Lt. Col. John King, the unit’s commander, told his 280 fellow soldiers that FAA anti-hijacking regulations require passengers to surrender pocket knives, nose hair scissors and cigarette lighters. ‘If you have any of those things,’ he said, almost apologetically, ‘put them in this box now.’ The troops were, however, allowed to keep hold of their assault rifles, body armour, helmets, pistols, bayonets and combat shotguns” — reported in the Air Finance Journal.

13 comments to Homeland idiocy

  • That is possibly the winner for the most stupid piece of bureaucratic idiocy of this year, at least.

  • Juvenal was right: it is difficult not to write satire these days, especially when the targets of such satires are so much better at being satirical than anyone at Saturday Night Live

  • Just John

    Sure, it’s funny now, but wait until our forces in Iraq stumble across a hidden underground bunker with enormous stockpiles of nose hair scissors! Won’t be laughing then, will ya?!

  • Richard Thomas

    No, no. You have it all wrong. Everyon knows that if someone armed responds to a crime then there is an inevitable bloodbath. Imagine what could ensue with a plane full of armed people. Therefore, it was essential that the tools of terrorists (Nail clippers, shoes, mobile phone batteries) be restricted in order to prevent a bloodbath and probably exploding planes.

    Or something.


  • Arty

    All 19 hijackers got through airport security on Sept. 11. Not one of them were tripped up by FAA regulations because the FAA is a collection of slack-jawed, mouth-breathing inbreds who need to be fired, imprisoned and sued so they never collect a penny of their pensions.

  • Steve P

    As The Sun’s columnist Richard Littlejohn is so fond of saying:
    “You couldn’t make it up”

  • Funny shit. A tad funnier than that EU port for landlocked countries.

  • Rick

    That can’t be true…..so it must be…

    Is there any hope?

  • Mark McGilvray

    The FAA is a laughingstock. In fact the entire Homeland Security apparatus is fundamentally incompetent and mislead. We may wake up when the Islamofascists NUKE one of our major cities, but that’s what it will take. BTW, when will the otherwise sensible Brits hang George Galloway? America should do the same for its moonbat politicians. In memory of Neville Chamberlain, I propose a new criminal statute directed at political negligence, or malpractice – a crime against humanity.

  • What would George S. Patton do in a situation like that?

  • rosignol

    What would George S. Patton do in a situation like that?

    He might do something similar to what he did in a foxhole in north Africa, depending on if any ladies were present.

    Patton’s disdain for going on the defensive is fairly well known.

  • Doug Jones

    FAA /= Homeland Security. I have had dealings with various FAA personnel all the way up to Ms Blakey, and while they are bureaucrats, they generally have a well defined mission and serve it competently.

    Most Homeland Security people try to do a good job, but their entire operration is crippled by political correctness and a deeply confused mission. All the HS screeners that I’ve contacted (and I’ve been through secondary screening a few times) have been polite and efficient, even occasionally friendly. One should not paint with an overly wide brush.

  • Robert Alderson

    I’ve found that TSA screeners are generally courteous and friendly. But, they are just applying a set of rules at the expense of thinking for themselves. Everything seems to be focussed on the scanss, screening and searches and not on talking to people.

    For example back in 2002 I was in the US on a temporary work visa. Around the anniversary of 9-11 when the alert level was bumped up I had to undertake a heavy series of international flights over a period of two or three months. I wasn’t really surprised that I got the fullest set of secondary searches every single time I flew. A better use of resources might have been to take me aside and ask me a few questions about why I was travelling; see if my story hung together and whether I acted “hinky.” As it was I just picked up a detailed comparative knowledge of search procedures at different airports.