Slashdot Mirror


Booted From Airplane For Wearing Anti-TSA T-shirt

Cigarra writes "PhD student Arijit learned the hard way that in Brave New America you can't mock TSA's Security Theater and go on about your business. According to a recollection in RT.com: 'After being vigorously screened and questioned multiple times, Arijit says he was finally given permission, once more, to board his plane. The pilot of the aircraft, however, had had enough of the whole ordeal and asked the Delta supervisor to relay the message that, due to the discomfort the shirt had caused, neither Arijit nor his wife would be allowed to board the aircraft.' Just how much humiliation is the general American public willing to tolerate in the name of 'security'?"

826 comments

  1. duh - his name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean come on "Arijit" clearly a terrorist threat.

    1. Re:duh - his name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      He may be an ijit, but he's Arijit!

    2. Re:duh - his name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only those with names from the Bible are allowed on planes now.

    3. Re:duh - his name by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So are Eric and Dylan, Timothy, Ted, Jeff, and John. Should we bar everyone with those first names from flying?

    4. Re:duh - his name by SuperRenaissanceMan · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes we should.

      --
      Any comment mentioning moderation is automatically Offtopic.
    5. Re:duh - his name by schlachter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      sounds like the pilot was being vindictive and trying to push his political views...no fair and bad service.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    6. Re:duh - his name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's worst than I thought--they're everywhere!!!

    7. Re:duh - his name by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yep. If you share a name with a reviled person, you should change your name or suffer the consequences.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    8. Re:duh - his name by Stargoat · · Score: 2

      Well, I suppose it's good that I intend to name my children Lemuel and Nephi.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    9. Re:duh - his name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me know when Billy Ray or Bubba Joe hijacks a plane... Eric, Dylan, Timothy, Ted, Jeff and John did awful things, but non hijacked a plane.

    10. Re:duh - his name by drkim · · Score: 1

      Only those with names from the Bible are allowed on planes now.

      That's why I'm naming my boy 'Phalec' and my daughter 'Hori!'

    11. Re:duh - his name by xevioso · · Score: 1

      nice.

    12. Re:duh - his name by el+jocko+del+oeste · · Score: 1

      Insightful? Are you sure? When did we start modding people up for not getting the joke?

    13. Re:duh - his name by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      He also had the words "terrorist" and "bomb" on his shirt. What did he think was going to happen, that he'd only have to spend ten minutes with each person he met in order to explain how it was really not a threat and just piece of satire? Come on, passengers apparently don't even like perfectly innocent babies on the planes with them for fear that they might start crying, the passengers certainly won't want some crazy guy trying to make trouble with the TSA sitting next to them either.

      This guy wanted a confrontation with the TSA, and he got it. Now that may have been wrong of TSA to overreact, but it's disengenuous to later claim to be surprised by it.

    14. Re:duh - his name by spongman · · Score: 1

      Should we bar everyone with those first names from flying?

      Definitely.

      Sincerely, someone not named one of those names.

    15. Re:duh - his name by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yes!

      Sincerely,
      Michael

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re:duh - his name by steveg · · Score: 1

      The TSA didn't overreact. They were fine with it.

      Delta overreacted, *after* the TSA pronounced him ok to board.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    17. Re:duh - his name by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      I'm naming my firstborn Nebuchadnezzar

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    18. Re:duh - his name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot. That's the only thing I can conclude from your post. And if you are going to be an idiot you should at least read the article.

    19. Re:duh - his name by bkk_diesel · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod this up to a 6.

    20. Re:duh - his name by jmactacular · · Score: 1

      nga nga not gonna fly here any more. haha =P

  2. It's even worse by jodido · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Add in the racial bias in profiling and the racist prejudices of some passengers (this can get you booted too if a passenger decides s/he is "uncomfortable" on the plane with you on it) and you have quite an ugly situation.

    1. Re:It's even worse by Tridus · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA perhaps? It's in there. I know it's easier to bitch and moan like a fucking moron then to actually RTFA, but lets give it a try:

      “He gave a stupid answer,” Arijit recalls hearing the officer say to a supervisor. “And he looks foreign.”

      “Certainly he wasn’t implying that dark-skinned people are not real Americans and that white people are the only true Americans,” Arijit writes in part of his snark-filled synopsis. “Fortunately, Mark’s request was denied. Apparently, someone at NFTA recognized this bigoted meathead for the bigoted meathead he was and that nationality is simply a concept that exists solely on paper and cannot be discerned from just looking at someone.”

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    2. Re:It's even worse by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 0

      I find it hard to take anyone seriously that uses the word "retarded" as a synonym of "dumb".

    3. Re:It's even worse by capnkr · · Score: 0, Troll

      Poke an animal or a person, with a sharp stick, and see what kind of reaction you get - it won't be a smile and a "Let me do whatever it takes to help you...". Instead it will be similar to what this guy saw, by metaphorically poking the bureaucrats that are the TSA and airline security crowd with an offensive-to-them shirt.

      As a doctoral candidate, he should be intelligent enough to hypothesize this sort of reaction, yet when that is exactly what happens, he gets all huffy. No sympathy from me, for being a dumbass and now getting whiny about it. Man up, Arijit, stop being a whiny puss.

      Should the TSA and airline security be what it is now? IMO, hell no, it is doing no good, it is pointless, security theater. But that doesn't change that this person got pretty much what anyone with a lick of common sense would have guessed would be the sort of reaction one could expect. Newtons Law, and all that...

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    4. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it hard to take anyone seriously that uses the word "retarded" as a synonym of "dumb".

      Since I doubt he meant to observe that slashdot can't speak...

      I find it hard to take anyone seriously that uses the word "dumb" as a synonym of "stupid", while getting butthurt about "retarded". Clinically correct language: take it or leave it, but you can't have it both ways.

    5. Re:It's even worse by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure he was aware something like this could happen, but he had the balls to risk some heat to exercise his rights and bring attention to the stupidity of the TSA. Good for him, if more people had that kind of guts then the TSA could be tamed.

    6. Re:It's even worse by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Poke an animal or a person, with a sharp stick, and see what kind of reaction you get - it won't be a smile and a "Let me do whatever it takes to help you...". Instead it will be similar to what this guy saw, by metaphorically poking the bureaucrats that are the TSA and airline security crowd with an offensive-to-them shirt.

      Unless they work for Chick-Fil-A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg-jzlWcc0E

      As a doctoral candidate, he should be intelligent enough to hypothesize this sort of reaction, yet when that is exactly what happens, he gets all huffy. No sympathy from me, for being a dumbass and now getting whiny about it. Man up, Arijit, stop being a whiny puss. Should the TSA and airline security be what it is now? IMO, hell no, it is doing no good, it is pointless, security theater. But that doesn't change that this person got pretty much what anyone with a lick of common sense would have guessed would be the sort of reaction one could expect. Newtons Law, and all that...

      He was standing up for his rights and mocking a reviled government agency. And they let him past! It was Delta that bounced him and pitched a fit. Yep, Delta screwed him over because some people were uncomfortable. Never flying Delta...

    7. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but retarded fits better since it comes from mentally retarded. meaning behind in mental development and dumb just means unable to speak. So you may mean using it instead of stupid.

    8. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thing is you're not allowed to abuse your power to get back at a provocateur if the person hasn't done anything illegal.

      Which this is; a gross abuse of power: stopping somebody from traveling, potentially stealing hours if not DAYS of their time stranding them at an airport -> borderline imprisonment, simply because you "didn't like them". You can yell as much as you want about how "they started it" you were still the one that started the metaphorical punching AND you were several sizes larger than they were on the metaphorical scale.

    9. Re:It's even worse by Tridus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that's not what happened. TSA cleared him without incident. Delta (as in: the airline) raised a fuss. TSA then cleared him *again* with considerably more hassle, and Delta still wouldn't let him on the plane.

      TSA is bad, but they aren't actually the culprits in this story.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    10. Re:It's even worse by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that's not what happened. TSA cleared him without incident.

      Except that's not true. They cleared him eventually, but not "without incident."

    11. Re:It's even worse by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 2

      "Poke an animal or a person, with a sharp stick, and see what kind of reaction you get - it won't be a smile and a "Let me do whatever it takes to help you...". Instead it will be similar to what this guy saw, by metaphorically poking the bureaucrats that are the TSA and airline security crowd with an offensive-to-them shirt."

      That's not acceptable behavior from people who are LEO or, in this case, people who think they are LEO, and who have the power and discretion to detain or impede travel.

      To suggest that they should behave otherwise when faced with something irritating or questioning might be a utopian ideal, but it's still the correct standard.

    12. Re:It's even worse by Tridus · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, you're wrong. He cleared security without a problem the first time. Delta raised a fuss at the gate, and he had to deal with security again. That is when he had problems with them. Then Delta raised a fuss *again* after he'd cleared security twice.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    13. Re:It's even worse by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, blaming the victim because they were 'asking for it'. Even when one takes a risk, it is still the fault of the party that acted poorly. In this case the TSA and Delta are the ones that behaved badly... the guy did something risky yes, but risky well within his legal rights.

      This is the same class of argument as those people who claim rape victims are not actually victims because they wore a short skirt or went home with someone they didn't know.. yeah it is a risk, but it is still the rapist in the wrong.... and telling people they should live in fear and avoid things because bad people will get them does not help, it just shames the behavior and normalizes the bad behavior.

    14. Re:It's even worse by mbone · · Score: 1

      Poke an animal or a person, with a sharp stick, and see what kind of reaction you get - it won't be a smile and a "Let me do whatever it takes to help you...". Instead it will be similar to what this guy saw, by metaphorically poking the bureaucrats that are the TSA and airline security crowd with an offensive-to-them shirt.

      It wasn't the TSA that reacted, it was Delta.

    15. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, never fly Delta Airlines.

      Im going to post Anonymously because frankly, I dont feel like having some asshole come after me for this story. I used to work for a website that sold airline tickets, and I was a phone monkey who would take calls for bookings or complaints or whatever. This was about 8 months after 9/11 and lots of garbage was going on because white people are annoying.

      Basically an older man calls in, in tears. After spending a few minutes to calm the poor guy down it comes out that his son was on a Delta flight by himself (16, maybe 17 years old) and got bumped because some idiot felt "threatened" by his presence on the plane. See, he was from the middle east and clearly they were all out to kill us. So delta bumps this kid and left him in the airport. Last flight of the night, has no money, and they give him a food voucher for a resturant that was already closed. Too young to legally rent a Hotel, no means to get home till the next morning, hadn't eaten all day because he was expecting to get home in time for dinner. Frankly, not that smart to do so without cash, but that doesn't excuse Delta.

      Anyway, after begging on the phone with Delta for like 2 hours I gave up and called South West, who put him on a flight they had going out that night, no cost to the kid. This wasn't the only instance I've had with Delta Airlines and racist, bullshit policy about "discomfort" and the above story reminds me strongly of it. DO NOT FLY DELTA AIRLINES UNLESS YOU'RE WHITE AND/OR RICH. If you are, I still dont recommend it.

    16. Re:It's even worse by mbone · · Score: 1

      If Delta raises a red flag, the TSA is going to have to check it out, even if they think it is bullshit (which they probably did).

    17. Re:It's even worse by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      So, can you bring a first amendment case against a corporate entity? It's interesting that airport drama has moved from the fourth to the first.

    18. Re:It's even worse by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      So, can you bring a first amendment case against a corporate entity? It's interesting that airport drama has moved from the fourth to the first.

      No. The 1st amendment is about GOVERNMENT suppression of speech. Corporations can do as they well please.

    19. Re:It's even worse by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      The point though is that the whole system deserves to be repeatedly poked. The policies of TSA are just the other side of ridiculous. So much so that I decided that the security theater just isn't worth it anymore.

      Now if you had a mass of people wearing the same shirt and poking en masse - that would be funny!

    20. Re:It's even worse by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      First amendment rights apply to speech against government. Delta is not part of the government. They can do as they please.

    21. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not in Missouri. We have Rape split into two categories. "Legitimate", and "She wanted it", according to Todd Akin (R-Mo). Apparently, if she dresses that way, it's not a legit raping!

    22. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think his actual statement was that if she gets pregnant, it wasn't really rape.

      But that's Missourah for ya.

    23. Re:It's even worse by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not that I'm engaging in the most reasoned of debate here, and believe me I'm coming more from a devil's advocate position than anything else, but:

      Why should it be unacceptable to judge someone for having a substantially, disabling limitation on their intelligence, but acceptable to judge someone for being slightly below average intelligence? If we agree to the fundamental presumption that intelligence is outside of ones own control, why can you judge anyone for being stupid at all?

    24. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can. I've seen it done on redtube.

    25. Re:It's even worse by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Clinically correct language: take it or leave it, but you can't have it both ways.

      Sure you can. If you are stupid.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    26. Re:It's even worse by rilian4 · · Score: 1

      Delta could still be held liable (lawsuit for example) for not letting the guy and his wife on the place since they purchased tickets. If the TSA were the ones who escorted him off the plane, you might have a place to say that the TSA had no authority to do so as it would then be a 1st amendment violation as TSA is part of the federal government. If company representatives escorted him off, then 1st amendment certainly would not apply.

      --

      ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
    27. Re:It's even worse by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      "fuck the draft!"

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

      its legal to say 'fuck you' to authority. already been decided.

      its our right (so far they haven't taken THAT back yet) to free speech.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    28. Re:It's even worse by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      The reaction was expected, I also expect/hope he gets to personally sue each and ever person involved along with the airline to insure this does not happen again.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    29. Re:It's even worse by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      This has nothing to do with Law Enforcement. He was removed from the flight by the pilot, at the pilot's discretion, because his shirt was upsetting the passengers. The pilot has that right. The safety of the passengers are the pilot's responsibility.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    30. Re:It's even worse by ProfBooty · · Score: 4, Informative

      True, yet as a common carrier they have specific rules they must follow to maintain common carrier status. The issue here is their common carrier obligations versus the captains discretion for removing a threat.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    31. Re:It's even worse by LateArthurDent · · Score: 3, Funny

      I find it hard to take anyone seriously that uses the word "retarded" as a synonym of "dumb".

      Since I doubt he meant to observe that slashdot can't speak...

      I find it hard to take anyone seriously that uses the word "dumb" as a synonym of "stupid", while getting butthurt about "retarded". Clinically correct language: take it or leave it, but you can't have it both ways.

      The irony does not stop there. His nickname is also MickyTheIdiot. Idiot used to be a psychology term for a particular level of mental retardation.

    32. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, my first thought upon reading through TFA was, "Buffalo to Phoenix? Shoulda flown Southwest".

    33. Re:It's even worse by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      Well, Mr. Pedantic - that's why I also included "people who think they are LEO" and "who have the power to detain you or impede travel". That pretty much covers
      1) TSA, and
      2) the pilot
      pretty exactly, don't you think?

      Also, if you'd read the article you'd have seen the reference to the *actual* LEO who allegedly wanted to detain the guy further the next day because "he gave a stupid answer" and "he looks foreign".

    34. Re:It's even worse by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Now if you had a mass of people wearing the same shirt and poking en masse - that would be funny!

      And an excellent protest, especially if it happened in multiple airports at the same time.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    35. Re:It's even worse by tnk1 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Let's separate guilt from a personal responsibility to keep yourself safe. A rapist, or a Delta Airlines supervisor, is going to do what they are going to do. If you aren't walking around with your tits hanging out, a rapist may well still rape you anyway. If you are not wearing a TSA-bashing t-shirt, you may still be given a hassle for some other reason. It is within the power of those individuals to molest you, or not. So yes, they are the ones guilty of their actions.

      However, with the understanding that rapists or jerkass Delta employees do exist, you can increase or decrease your own ability to be selected as a target by not standing out and attracting the attention of the sort of people you want to avoid. In this case, it was stupid. An attractive female would actually have to take action to make herself unattractive including wearing uncomfortable outfits, which is completely unfair, even if it might be considered prudent. A guy getting on a plane who is baiting the airport security with a t-shirt has increased his chances of being hassled significantly for no reason at all.

      Should he be hassled? No. On the other hand, the very subject of his t-shirt indicates that he knows that airport security does hassle people, so what did he think was going to happen? The irony is that he didn't consider that it wasn't the TSA who was going to hassle him. Airline workers work there every day. They are probably more in favor of the TSA being allowed to do its job than most. After all, they are the ones who will be blown up and/or hijacked if something happens. Did Arjit think they would find him amusing?

      If his plan was to protest, then presumably he would have been prepared for the hassle. If he was actually just trying to get through airport security without being hassled, then he was a fool because he took a risk that he didn't have to take. I'm not sure what I think about Delta after this, but I am pretty sure I haven't come away with a higher opinion of the person hassled.

    36. Re:It's even worse by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Did you even read all 4 sentences of the summary?

      Specifically the second one.

      Hint, airlines don't "screen and question" passengers.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    37. Re:It's even worse by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 1st amendment is about GOVERNMENT suppression of speech. Corporations can do as they well please.

      Considering that the two become more and more indistinguishable from one another as the days roll on, perhaps it's time we reconsider that particular limitation.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    38. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but they are still violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, seeing as they are a public accommodation discriminating based on race.

      See Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States. 379 U.S. 241 (1964).

    39. Re:It's even worse by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're going to use "standing up for his rights" as an argument then you should realise that the pilot has some rights of his own, including "not letting a passenger on board because he feels like it". Pilots have absolute authority over the safety of their aircraft. Whether he was morally right to do so in this situation is debatable, but if you're going to invoke "rights" then the pilot is the one exercising them, the passenger only has the "right" to choose to fly with a different airline.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    40. Re:It's even worse by ryzvonusef · · Score: 2

      I recently submitted a story in this issue, Apparently, NYPD's secret dept has been racially profiling people simply for grumbling in Urdu, or visiting a lebanese cafe:

      http://slashdot.org/submission/2220419/nypd-official-muslim-spying-by-secret-unit-generated-no-leads-terrorism-cases

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    41. Re:It's even worse by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 0

      The pilot IS absolutely allowed to do that. If you want to change this I'd suggest getting a job with the FAA policy dept.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    42. Re:It's even worse by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 2

      This is actually a Civil Rights Act violation, which does apply to Delta, especially because, I believe, they are a common carrier.

    43. Re:It's even worse by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      This is not the way to do it. What sense does it make to harass the line workers? Did they come up with the policies? Will this cause the real decision makers to even notice? Unlikely. All this accomplishes is slowing down the already too slow security and pissing people off.

      Now, if you wanted to protest outside the TSA offices in DC or pin a Congress critter to the wall, you're starting to make some sense. If you're going to do something like clog up the works, sympathy for you and your cause is going to be limited, at best.

    44. Re:It's even worse by Binestar · · Score: 1

      I'm white, and according to Obama, I'm rich (roughly $65k salary).

      Curious: Where do you get the idea that Obama thinks you are rich at $65k?

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    45. Re:It's even worse by PenquinCoder · · Score: 1, Insightful

      $65k salary -is- rich. Try raising a family on $22k a year, no benefits or welfare support because 'you make too much money'.

    46. Re:It's even worse by hazah · · Score: 1

      Instead of catering to that nonscence, corporations should be put back in their place instead. It's sort of like treating the symptom instead of the problem.

    47. Re:It's even worse by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      Did you forget that you're on Slashdot, where the summaries are almost always incorrect in a substantial way?

    48. Re:It's even worse by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      If you really think that then you are a fool.

      Airlines most certainly "screen and question" you. If the busybody at the gate decides to not let you on the plane, she will find some bogus excuse to not let you on the plane.

      Piss off the person. Complain to the person. Act like anything but a floor mat, and you might not get on your plane.

      These people have the power to ruin your day and they know it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    49. Re:It's even worse by bbbaldie · · Score: 0

      My taxes have shot up (seeing how I'm now wealthy), I'm feeling some pain myself. I was barely making ends meet before it was decided that I should be doing more with my spare funds, being the despicable rich aristocrat that i am. ;-)

    50. Re:It's even worse by DigiShaman · · Score: 0

      First you make a racist rant about how "white people" are annoying. Then you proceed to tell us how the father in tears (unknown race) has a son of middle eastern descent. And now you proceed to tell us that Delta Airlines is racist and in all caps by finishing it off with the white/rich diatribe. Nice! Now I've seen everything on Slashdot.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    51. Re:It's even worse by hazah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a thing called a "business transaction". That pilot is obligated to honour it. The passengers paid for their seats. Now unless the poor bastard and his wife were really that uncomfortable to be around... you know, something a little more serious then a stupid t-shirt... then sure, they should not be put up with. Barring that from happening (and it didn't) that pilot failed to meet his obligations (i. e. he failed to do his job properly). So no, your assertion that he can "not letting a passenger on board because he feels like it" is not valid. You wouldn't expect a greasy, pimple faced, teenager to take your money and not give you your big mac because he is "uncomfortable" with you. Being a pilot doesn't magically put you in some special league.

    52. Re:It's even worse by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't fly Delta, indeed. A gate agent tried to take away my daughter's car seat. And her airplane seat, for that matter, converting her to lap child with no reduction in ticket price. I guess you can't expect a gate agent to know what seats are FAA approved and which ones are not, but perhaps you could expect them to STFU if they've got no clue and lack the aptitude to read the label that says "FAA approved". We told her to mind her own business and she told us that we might as well check the thing since the stewardess certainly wouldn't allow it on, and it would save us hassle by checking it right there instead of on the JetWay (tm). At least the stewardess at the door knew that the FAA allows -- and in fact recommends -- approved child seats for kids that size.

      I complained to Delta that their agent tried to convince us to needlessly endanger our daughter and deprive us of a paid for seat, a feat she would have accomplished if we'd just done what she told us. They made a non-apology-apology, and asked my to send them the details of where is happened and our ticket info, etc., but since I didn't feel like being an unpaid customer relations consultant, all I wanted was an insincere but unqualified apology and a worthless promise to make their gate agents more informed about carrying young children.

      Also, I was wearing the same t-shirt that day, but I guess I was lucky it was too fucking cold inside and out and I had to layer with a sweater. No telling what some hillbilly on the plane would have thought of it. At least as a white male with no foreign accent or name, I'm not a terrorist.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    53. Re:It's even worse by Killer+Instinct · · Score: 1

      Hint, airlines don't "screen and question" passengers.

      Yes...they...do.

      --
      #include bier;
    54. Re:It's even worse by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pilots have absolute authority over the safety of their aircraft.

      What's safety got to do with it? The guy wasn't a danger.

      And I'm pretty certain a pilot can't assault or kill someone and claim it was for safety reasons (he was giving me the evil eye!) and get away with it. So absolute authority my arse, he's answerable if he abuses it and hope this cuntrag gets shitcanned.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    55. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Airlines (and particularly the pilot) have authority to toss pretty much anyone off the plane they so feel like. Of course, then they are responsible for their actions - either by legal challenge or from violating company policy or both - but they can do it.

      Same with boat captains. They're the boss.

    56. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Obama.

    57. Re:It's even worse by jeremyp · · Score: 3, Informative

      You have a six figure id and you still haven't realised that the summaries here are often misleading or even downright wrong.

      From the victim's own blog:

      It is worth noting that once TSA was involved and had to question me about the meaning of my shirt, they did treat me with the utmost respect and without any malice. Indeed, the lead TSA agent recognized the absurdity of the situation and even apologized I had to go through all this, saying that he found the entire situation to be ridiculous and that he’d let me fly.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    58. Re:It's even worse by The+Moof · · Score: 1
      Did you read the full sentence you're referring to summary?

      After being vigorously screened and questioned multiple times, Arijit says he was finally given permission, once more, to board his plane

      Once more, as in this wasn't his first time through. I also read the article, his first time through security was "routine and without incident" (his own words, not mine). It was at the gate that everything went bad, and it wasn't started by the TSA.

    59. Re:It's even worse by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      This is not the way to do it. What sense does it make to harass the line workers? Did they come up with the policies? Will this cause the real decision makers to even notice? Unlikely. All this accomplishes is slowing down the already too slow security and pissing people off.

      Now, if you wanted to protest outside the TSA offices in DC or pin a Congress critter to the wall, you're starting to make some sense. If you're going to do something like clog up the works, sympathy for you and your cause is going to be limited, at best.

      If wealth can trickle down, misery can trickle up.

      Agreed. annoying the grunts is not the best way to do things. But if the job was so unpleasant that no one do it, that would necessarily invite attention. They're not totally innocent, after all. No one forced them to do it.

      In an ideal world, we'd descend on the people at the top. However, in this world, demonstrations are often kettled into Free Speech Zones far enough away so that the people who should be listening don't even know they're there, we elect our officials on silly things like their opponent is "too Liberal" instead of on being responsive to the common people, and most people can't spare the time or money to travel to the halls of power, anyway.

      The TSA workers are close at hand at the time the annoyance is felt, which makes them natural targets.

    60. Re:It's even worse by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>As a doctoral candidate, he should be intelligent enough to hypothesize this sort of reaction, yet when that is exactly what happens, he gets all huffy. No sympathy from me, for being a dumbass and now getting whiny about it. Man up, Arijit, stop being a whiny puss.

      As a doctoral candidate:
      He also knows we are a REPUBLIC and under the rule of Law, which includes the right of free speech. Congress many not forbid free speech (or the press which made his shirt) and neither can any other government official. The doctoral student's only mistake is that he believed government officials still follow the rule of law (something many Americans also falsely believe).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    61. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were hoping for, y'know, a citation or something, like somewhere we could see this sort of information for ourselves, but the fact that you consider "BECAUZ OBAAAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" to be an answer in and of itself is telling enough of where you got that idea from in the first place. Thanks for being so clear.

    62. Re:It's even worse by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to take anyone seriously that uses the word "retarded" as a synonym of "dumb".

      Why?

      The terms are pretty much are synonymous with each other in common vernacular.....have been for ages.

      This is common in every day speech here...are you new to the US or something?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    63. Re:It's even worse by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My taxes have shot up

      Bullshit: Please cite how your taxes have "shot-up" since Obama took office. Is it because you have a job now, and thus are paying more in taxes than you were while unemployed during the Bush administration that makes you believe your taxes have "shot up?"

      --
      Who did what now?
    64. Re:It's even worse by cpu6502 · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>$65k salary -is- rich. Try raising a family on $22k a year, no benefits or welfare support because 'you make too much money'.

      $65000 is in the top one-third of all Americans. Being in the top 1/3 does not make you "rich" dumbass. That's still middle class you envious, jealous, desiring-to-take-other-people's money prick.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    65. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't imply that they're stupid. They might have a medical condition. They could be retarded for all you know.

    66. Re:It's even worse by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but it's not my assertion, it's the FAAs. The pilot can ask any passenger to leave the aircraft for no reason at all. If that passenger is the MD of the airline he can still do it. You don't have to give a reason, you can just say "I do not give my permission for that person to be on this aircraft", and that person is legally obligated to leave and may be removed by force if necessary. That's not my own opinion, it's what aviation law says the pilot is allowed to do.

      Sure, the MD can fire the pilot, in which case he's no longer the pilot and should leave the cockpit, but that's the MD's only way to stay on the aircraft. The pilot's in charge of the aircraft, and aside from the co-pilot relieving him of duty for medical or safety reasons that law is absolute.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    67. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Discomfort"="I can do whatever the hell I want"

      I hope the idiot that complained gets discomforted in a plane crash.

    68. Re:It's even worse by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      No, you're wrong. He cleared security without a problem the first time.

      I'm not surprised. The TSA couldn't find a scathing political statement if it was printed on the front of someone's shirt standing right in front of them.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    69. Re:It's even worse by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      I am only commenting on the intellectual ability.
      The cause I am not certain of.
      One of the effects of retardation is stupidity.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    70. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it hard that to take anyone so politically correct as yourself seriously.

    71. Re:It's even worse by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Clinically correct language: take it or leave it, but you can't have it both ways.

      Sure you can. If you are stupid.

      Or if you're retarded.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    72. Re:It's even worse by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, they aren't synonymy. If you are using retarded to mean dumb, then you are stupid.

      In case of fire, wold you use a fire retardant, for a fire dumbener?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    73. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try raising a family on $22k a year, no benefits or welfare support because 'you make too much money'.

      $65000 is in the top one-third of all Americans. Being in the top 1/3 does not make you "rich" dumbass. That's still middle class you envious, jealous, desiring-to-take-other-people's money prick.

      And thus you show your true colors. I always knew you were nothing but a filthy liar any time you "claimed" you supported a social safety net for the poor.

    74. Re:It's even worse by Synn · · Score: 2

      > There's a thing called a "business transaction". That pilot is obligated to honour it.

      Actually he isn't. The pilot of a plane(like the captain of a boat) has pretty much absolute authority of his craft. If he wants you thrown off for looking at him sideways, well, it sucks to be you.

    75. Re:It's even worse by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "because white people are annoying."

      No bigotry here.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    76. Re:It's even worse by geekoid · · Score: 1

      no it is not rich. Just because it isn't dirt pore doesn't mean it's rich.

      Of course, the person is just making up lies about Obama.; which is the only the the pubs have anymore.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    77. Re:It's even worse by hazah · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the corrective replys. My foot is firmly in my mouth.

    78. Re:It's even worse by geekoid · · Score: 1

      no they haven't. You are stupid or a liar.

      Taxes shot up, sheesh. Blaming the the guy fighting to let you keep the tax breaks for tax increases? not THAT"S rich.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    79. Re:It's even worse by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Not really. IT's more complecated then that, but you wold actually need to be able to read above a 5th grade level to understand the writing of our fore fathers.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    80. Re:It's even worse by djchristensen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So should we get rid of any clothes we have that might offend someone? Bumper stickers? Sikhs will need to stop wearing their headdresses so they don't stand out and possibly make someone uncomfortable on a train or bus or plain. And just forget about burqas or other traditional dress from non-Western cultures (do you think people would be more concerned about a guy wearing lederhosen or a woman wearing a burqa, given no difference in behavior between the two?).

      I'm not typically a fan of slippery-slope thinking, but if you pay attention, you'll realize we've already slid well down that slope. Posts like yours demonstrate that quite clearly. It's now okay to be forced to self-censor, and those that don't (and who clearly are not breaking any laws) deserve some or all of the blame. Does it bother you at all that you have to be careful about which shirt you might be wearing when you go on a flight? It bothers me.

      And on a side note, it's actually nice to get a view of the TSA where they aren't portrayed as stupid brainless vindictive security drones. Given the overwhelmingly negative portrayal they get here on /., it's a good thing to be reminded that they are people and that some of them, at least, can do their jobs in a reasonably respectful way.

    81. Re:It's even worse by geekoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "cuntrag "
      That statement make many women uncomfortable. Just thought you might want to know.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    82. Re:It's even worse by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not bigotry unless you fixate on its presumed complement as well: "non-white people are not annoying".

      I tend to see that GPP is right, just not comprehensive.

      Logical induction: "People are annoying. White people are people. Therefore, white people are annoying. QED."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    83. Re:It's even worse by sjames · · Score: 1

      And he was afraid that his angst ridden passengers might burst an aneurism if this man's t-shirt (which contained no profanity or inappropriate images) upset them?

    84. Re:It's even worse by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      No reason to be a dickhead.

    85. Re:It's even worse by grantspassalan · · Score: 1

      "In this case the TSA and Delta are the ones that behaved badly..."
      That is certainly true, but the captains of ships and airplanes have the legal right to deny anyone entry onto their aircraft for any reason or no reason at all. The captain's decision may be questioned as to its wisdom, but in the end he/she has the final word.

      --
      A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
    86. Re:It's even worse by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      No, you are a despicable troll who does not know squat about his own tax bill.

    87. Re:It's even worse by Burning1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You probably already know this, but perhaps it would be informative to the rest of slashdot:

      I have a close friend who used to be a commercial pilot. His statement on lap babies: "If anything bad happens during the flight, all the lap babies will die. The only reason the FAA allows it is that bringing a lap baby aboard a plane is still safer than driving."

      http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/mcgee/2008-07-29-lap-children_N.htm

      You did the right thing.

    88. Re:It's even worse by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      The safety of the passengers are the pilot's responsibility.

      "Upset" or "uncomfortable" is not "unsafe"

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    89. Re:It's even worse by SkimTony · · Score: 1

      The term "dumb" clinically indicates muteness, or an inability to speak. Colloquially, "dumb," "stupid," "retarded," and others are used to indicate that someone's a few synapses short. Clinically, they mean specific things, which are not (strictly speaking) equivalent.

    90. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a liar and therefore a piece of human garbage.

      I hope you die as you finish reading this sentence.

    91. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The former rarely procreate. The latter do so explosively.

    92. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, Obama has never said that $65,000/yr is 'rich' and has seemingly often made the distinction that 'he would only raise taxes on those making over $250,000. In fact if you actually checked your paycheck you should note that your SS withholding has been reduced by about a third during his term.

    93. Re:It's even worse by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      ... that doesn't change that this person got pretty much what anyone with a lick of common sense would have guessed would be the sort of reaction one could expect. Newtons Law, and all that...

      Not to mention that he was presenting his message to the wrong people. Its not like the clerk checking your ID has any saying when it comes to TSA policies. Yes, some of them are dicks (comes with the job), but they are still nobodies in TSA ladder.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    94. Re:It's even worse by gatfirls · · Score: 1

      Pilots pretty much have a "zero bullshit" policy. For the most part they're not interested in the TSA, NSA,SCOTUS, 9/11, 9/12, Chick-a-fila, or whatever else. If you have flown enough you would know why, people causing a stir (even if unintentional) can make for a very bad flight for everyone and a couple hundred irritated/angry people in a 300,000lb box in the sky is the very definition of "unsafe". I'm not saying it's "right" at a customer level it's just the way it is.

    95. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, ha! Right on cue you got asshole DigiShaman after you!

    96. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From that post, it sounds like you're also an easily led moron.

      Can you point out the exact speech/bill that makes you believe Obama says $65k/year is rich?

    97. Re:It's even worse by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1
      And I'm pretty certain a pilot can't assault or kill someone and claim it was for safety reasons

      Yes, yes they can. In fact you're taught about that somewhere in the first 20 hours of any flight training. If a passenger threatens the safety of the aircraft then you can use any reasonable physical force to stop them. If, for example, you're in a light aircraft sitting in the co-pilot seat (fairly normal for a passenger in a Cessna) and you start messing about with the controls then you're likely to get a right bollocking from the pilot. If that doesn't work you'll probably find him punching you extremely hard, or simply pushing you out of the aircraft. If you're actively endangering multiple lives then lethal force can be legally reasonable. Again, this is aviation law, not just "how I think things should be".

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    98. Re:It's even worse by adisakp · · Score: 0

      He was standing up for his rights and mocking a reviled government agency. And they let him past! It was Delta that bounced him and pitched a fit. Yep, Delta screwed him over because some people were uncomfortable. Never flying Delta...

      I don't have a problem with Delta kicking him off. The guy was an ass -- he knew he was wearing something that might be considered "offensive" to other travelers and could making other customers uncomfortable. People are not comfortable with bombs or terrorists being mentioned on a plane when you travel. No one wants to hear about you talk about how often planes crash when you are boarding a plane either. Delta acted not only because passengers were "uncomfortable" but also because this one guy INCONVENIENCED AND DELAYED an entire plane by his behavior.

      See, the Guy goes to the airport while wearing a shirt which jokes about "BOMBS", "TERRISTS", and "GONNA KILL US ALL". You shouldn't mention the word "bomb" in a security screening at an airport even in jest anymore than you should shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Unfortunately, any mention of "bombs" has to be investigated and leads to additional screenings and delays even if it's a joke in bad taste. This is a pretty well known fact. Then the guy acts beligerant and deliberately difficult while being screened which causes the screening to take longer and delays the flight for everyone else. They eventually let him through and none of his rights were violated but the additional time to screen him for his joke (again the equivalent of shouting "FIRE!!! -- NOT!!! JUST KIDDING!!!" in a theater) caused a delay.

      Pilot gets fed up with all the delays caused but a stupid passenger who is trying to make a statement and inconveniencing a plane full of people who just want to travel without making it a political statement. Result is that Pilot makes a decision for the courtesy of the other passengers to continue his flight without a deliberately obnoxious passenger and his co-travelers who caused delays on the flight.

    99. Re:It's even worse by adisakp · · Score: 1

      Exactly... and in this case the pilot was "standing up for his rights" to remove a customer from the flight whose deliberately obnoxious actions were delaying the flight for the rest of the customers and whose choice of actions made the other passengers uncomfortable. It's NOT OK to mention bombs, terrorists, and killing all americans on a plane even if you are just joking about it or wearing a t-shirt that is joking about it any more than it's OK to joke about "fire" in a crowded theater.

    100. Re:It's even worse by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      No, they aren't synonymy. If you are using retarded to mean dumb, then you are stupid.

      Geez, what got your panties in a wad?

      I've never seen anyone get upset about something most people say in every day conversations. What's got you so upset about something this simple?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    101. Re:It's even worse by bbbaldie · · Score: 1

      Thanks for straightening me out, Comrade. I hope I'm helping you subsidize your lifestyle.

    102. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, there. This isn't like saying someone was asking to be raped because they were wearing tight clothing, this is like saying someone asked to be groped and harassed by wearing a tube top bedazzled with "HEY RAPISTS, I DARE YOU". There's a huge, huge difference between "doing something risky" and being antagonistic. This is not, by a longshot, the same thing. I'm not saying it's right, or that he was asking to be harassed and detained for wearing a shirt that mocked the TSA to an airport, but it's definitely not "the same class of argument" as blaming rape victims.

    103. Re:It's even worse by bbbaldie · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Well, I'm stupid, and a liar, so THERE! My taxes are up about 10% with no discernible rise in income. Seeing's how Obama supporters blame everything from global warming to increased solar flares on Bush, I ask your indulgence in blaming my recent increased tax burden on your own pride and joy in power in the White House during this time period.

      What an asshole art thou. :-)

    104. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think his actual statement was

      I think you inferred that, since his quote spoke of probability.

    105. Re:It's even worse by toriver · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Delta Airlines is a private company. Another problem is that when you enter an airplane or ship you leave the Republic and enter the Kingdom of the sovereign captain. Which sucks, but shows that sometimes a dictatorship is considered keen.

      Then again: This comes back to the old "you do not have a right to fly" semi-argument of the TSA apologists who crop up from time to time. Sure, but that applies to almost any form of transportation, yet the same (usually conservative) defenders of screening and airline King-of-the-hilling start to snort derisively if you point out that that also applies to driving a car. Maybe flying from A to B is as important to someone as the "freedom of the road" is to them? If so, flying should be just as much a "right".

    106. Re:It's even worse by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Rich and poor are pretty flexible relative terms. I'm earning around 75K a year myself. I wouldn't consider myself rich, but I am certainly doing very well. That amount is considerably more than the average household makes in my area. In some parts of the country that would be a pittance but for where I have chosen to live I can do so rather comfortably.

      It helps that we are careful with our money. We're saving for retirement, improving our home and driving older vehicles. We don't have expensive entertainment bills like subscription TV. We don't buy the latest gadgets, I use a PC that I upgrade piecemeal, the wife uses a 6 year old laptop and an ipod touch we bought used from a relative. I wear clothes I bought 4 plus years ago.

      Basically by not living extravagantly I hope to someday be able to consider myself rich.

    107. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a planeful of hair-trigger sensitive, nervous passengers, upset and uncomfortable can lead to unsafe in a matter of moments. Especially once the alcohol starts flowing.

    108. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either that or he thought the angst ridden passengers might try to force an aneurism in t-shirt man.

    109. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My taxes have shot up

      If you're making $65k a year and your taxes shot up in the last four years, you're doing your taxes wrong. If the *nominal* amount of money you pay has gone up, it's either because you make more money than you did before Obama was in office or your voluntarily stopped doing things that previously granted you deductions.

      Either way, you're full of it.

    110. Re:It's even worse by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      I suspect that wearing a T-shirt with the words "Fire" would however be acceptable in any crowded location. It could be in poor taste, but almost certainly legal. Also, the court case where falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater was used as an example in the judge's decision to prevent political flyer distribution was later overturned (note that joking is not shouting).

      That earlier decision had put up a restriction to free speech with a test of whether the speech presented "a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." After this case was overturned in the late 60's the courts made a new test which is that speech may be prohibited when it can incite "imminent lawless action." So, if the government was running the airplane (and not a private corporation) you should indeed be allowed to joke about bombs and terrorists permitted that it was clear you were joking (or ridiculing whatever methods you perceive to be too feeble to stop terrorists). Falsely shouting "bomb!" or "fire!" in an airplane or theater is a grey area. Giving stump speeches promoting the bombing of airplanes is definitely legal (because the criminal action isn't imminent). Otherwise we should have pulled "Civil Disobedience" long since (which predates any of these court cases by the way).

    111. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am now, personally convinced, as ugly as it is, we need intelligence tests to vote.

    112. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm paying 10% more (roughly) in income taxes now than i was three years ago, with no rise in income. President's fault!

      Because you're in a higher tax bracket? You know the rates are progressive, right? What would you have been paying under Bush with the same income you have now?

      Also, how is it the President's fault when he signed legislation to extend the Bush tax breaks? What should he have done differently, veto it? You need to pull your head out of your ass.

    113. Re:It's even worse by loshwomp · · Score: 1

      On a planeful of hair-trigger sensitive, nervous passengers, upset and uncomfortable can lead to unsafe in a matter of moments. Especially once the alcohol starts flowing.

      Then those are the people who need to be removed from the plane.

    114. Re:It's even worse by Nyder · · Score: 0

      My taxes have shot up

      Bullshit: Please cite how your taxes have "shot-up" since Obama took office. Is it because you have a job now, and thus are paying more in taxes than you were while unemployed during the Bush administration that makes you believe your taxes have "shot up?"

      I don't pay taxes (well, i pay local shopping taxes), but since Obama has been in office, the price of food has gone up. Damn it, tuna was 75 cents a can, and now i have to pay $1.09? I used to be able to buy a 3lb thing of ground beef for $5, now it's almost $9.

      Damn you Obama!!!!!!

      --
      Be seeing you...
    115. Re:It's even worse by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1

      He should have removed the passengers who were upset. They were the ones causing the problem. Anyone who is pro-TSA is a problem.

    116. Re:It's even worse by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I have always thought that since corporations are fictitious entity created by the government and that their very existence is an extension of government powers, they should be under the same restrictions that the government is concerning human rights.

    117. Re:It's even worse by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      So, we can all agree that comparing Delta Airlines employees to rapists is a fair comparison then?

    118. Re:It's even worse by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      nationality is simply a concept that exists solely on paper and cannot be discerned from just looking at someone.

      It is amazing how many people don't recognize this. People who should know better consistently get race and nationality confused. It is particularly ironic when people do it in a rant complaining about racism.

    119. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add in the racial bias in profiling and the racist prejudices of some passengers (this can get you booted too if a passenger decides s/he is "uncomfortable" on the plane with you on it) and you have quite an ugly situation.

      No more ugly than the "racist" bullshit that flows through our legal system daily unrelated to TSA. Being overly sensitive is a "problem", but it is a problem that has been artificially created by our litigious society. Remember everyone is a victim if anyone can cash in on it...and they do.

      I'd offer a solution to fix the problem, but much like sharks, there's no way in hell to re-wire a greedy lawyer once they smell blood.

    120. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How is this possible? You give so little detail that the most likely explanations are that you're either deliberately lying or grossly mistaken. Throw us a bone - explain exactly how your taxes have shot up 10%. Then we can have a civilized discussion about what happened and why.

      For example - are you talking IRS taxes? Tax brackets haven't changed under Obama any, so that can't be it.

      The payroll tax holiday? IIRC, that's still in effect until 2013. And it was, again, IIRC, signed into law in the first place by Obama so you should actually be claiming your taxes went down because of his Presidency.

      Do you mean state income tax? Yeah, I could see that going up. And given your rhetoric about liberals laying blame of everything on Bush and therefore its legit for you to blame this sort of thing on Obama, I'd say this is the next most likely basis for your statement.

      Assuming that, what state do you live in?

      I think in the current political debate (and certain in terms of Obama's words about letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire) that "rich" is defined as the 1.5% highest earning households in the US. Those are ones making $250k or more. If you think you are "rich" because of a $65k salary, and that Romney has your best interests at heart, you're highyl mistaken IMO. You're the kind of person that Romney's policies would love to bleed dry. And he's convinced you to smile and whistle all the way to the slaughter.

    121. Re:It's even worse by hazem · · Score: 1

      If someone complains about being uncomfortable with another passenger, they should be invited to leave the plane and take another flight. Otherwise this is too easy to abuse.

      I'm uncomfortable being wedged between two large people or being near a crying baby. Can I just complain that they all seem suspicious and I'm uncomfortable so I can get the row to myself?

    122. Re:It's even worse by Havenwar · · Score: 1

      A more interesting question from my point of view, why can't you? Why do so many people object to the concept that only intelligent people should be allowed to make the sort of decisions that have long lasting effects on the world and our communities? Why isn't there a basic competence test required to take a seat of power? Just some basic stuff, logic, reason, history, ethics, that sort of thing. Nothing complicated, you'd think. Nothing outrageous... but apparently clearly elitist thinking.

      So okay, I'll admit you can't judge a person for being stupid. But you can judge him for being stupid and not recognizing it, or being stupid and still wanting a place of intellectual power, or being stupid while wielding power, or any other number of things.

    123. Re:It's even worse by sjames · · Score: 1

      If they were the threat of violence, shouldn't they have been put off of the plane? What if someone had said 'halibut' or something and set one of them off?

    124. Re:It's even worse by adisakp · · Score: 1

      You may be behaving in a "LEGAL" manner but if you are an obnoxious asshole whose deliberate behavior is making a lot of other customers uncomfortable and causing inconveniences to both the company and other customers, then a PRIVATE company has the right to deny you service. That is exactly what Delta did.

    125. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "lots of garbage was going on because white people are annoying."

      Shut your filthy, racist, brown piehole.

    126. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $65k is firmly middle class if there is only one earner in the household. It's just that families who consider themselves middle class have become poorer and poorer over the last decade or two.

    127. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

    128. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The pilot IS absolutely allowed to do that. If you want to change this I'd suggest getting a job with the FAA policy dept.

      No.

      You change it by learning the pilot's name/address, following him to a supermarket or similar, and waiting for him to return to his vehicle with an armload of groceries, whereupon you beat him senseless with a baseball bat, then thoroughly pulverize every single bone in both hands & wrists so he never flies again as a pilot or wipes his own ass.

      Works on arrogant cops and politicians too.

    129. Re:It's even worse by fscking_coward_2001 · · Score: 1

      You're not helping nearly enough. Now STFU and hand over more.

    130. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if a middle eastern looking guy's beard is upsetting to the passangers then he would kick him him out as well? how about a black guy on an all white plane in say Kentucky? how about a crying baby upsetting just about everyone?

    131. Re:It's even worse by boaworm · · Score: 1

      Time to write a sequel to this old song:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo

      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
    132. Re:It's even worse by Brian+Feldman · · Score: 1

      Being upset by a T-shirt is not a safety matter.

      --
      Brian Fundakowski Feldman
    133. Re:It's even worse by ExecutorElassus · · Score: 1

      For the same reason we scorn the obese who are that way due to sloth and overindulgence, but not due to glandular or metabolic disorders: the hardware works fine, but the owner has elected to misuse it. Or rather, the possessor of a perfectly functioning brain has elected not to exercise it. It isn't true stupidity we scorn, but mental laziness.

    134. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Think of it as the citizen's version of "Extreme Rendition"/NDAA.

      What's good for the goose...

    135. Re:It's even worse by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. Who do you think writes the laws and picks the candidates who are elected?

    136. Re:It's even worse by budgenator · · Score: 1

      My experience has been that it takes quite a generous portion of intelligence to be really stupid; take the case of a PhD candidate wearing a tee shirt with a message that is especially inflammatory to the TSA while boarding a plane, you don't see people with Down's syndrome doing stupid shit like that.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    137. Re:It's even worse by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but attractive women need to eat lots of unhealthy food, stop exercising, and stop bathing regularly, so that they can make themselves unattractive, so rapists will be less likely to be interested in them.

    138. Re:It's even worse by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I guess what this incident shows is that instead of wearing a T-shirt insulting the TSA, you should wear a T-shirt that insults Delta Airlines. TSA policies do suck ass, but they let the guy through and didn't complain about his T-shirt; it's the bitches at Delta that threw a hissy-fit.

    139. Re:It's even worse by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I'm not completely sure that's correct, Delta is a common carrier, many states have equal accommodation laws, FAA regulations; in short it's a pretty murky area of the law.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    140. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everywhere else in the US, we refer to "she wanted it" as statutory. I think that's the distinction Akin was trying to make, even though his knowledge of biology was sorely lacking.

    141. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safety of passengers is very different from comfort of passengers. The guy wasn't making the passengers unsafe (slogans on t-shirts are rarely unsafe), and any decent person could realize that. He was simply making them uncomfortable.

    142. Re:It's even worse by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the pilot should have offered to arrange alternate accommodation for the passengers that were upset; then those who were upset probably would have decided that the upset of staying onboard with a brown person wearing an inflammatory statement was trivial compared to the upset caused by waiting for an available seat on the next flight.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    143. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the 3.8% tax for Medicare? Sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol? The tanning booth tax?
      I will be at the gym.

    144. Re:It's even worse by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      What's safety got to do with it? The guy wasn't a danger.

      See the line you quoted above, "pilots have absolute authority". Whether the guy is a danger or not isn't your decision to make, it's the pilots. If the guy had been escorted through customs by the head of the TSA throwing rose petals in his path, with a guard of honour and the President, the Dalia Lama and the Pope doing a special "You Should Totally Let This Guy On The Plane" song and dance routine written by god himself then the pilot can still say no, and that's the end of the matter.

      That's the difference between pilots and god. God doesn't think he's a pilot.

      The rule is still there for a pretty good reason though.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    145. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can cite one. Although its not a real tax, its something that you have to pay none the less. Its called inflation, and if you look a the real products most people buy on a daily and weekly basis you will note that the government's ongoing lack of a clue when it comes to monetary policy, economics, and basic budgetary finance has cause a pretty large increase in normal necessities.

      People shouldn't buy into the bullshit numbers published by the media and put forth by whatever administration is in power. THey always spin or skew them to meet whatever agenda they are pursuing. You think unemployment is only 8.x%? Try again and include all the people who are no longer seeking work because they are frustrated with lack of progress in that area. Also include people who are only able to get part time work when they want and need full time work. I bet the number of unemployed is much closer to the 15-20% range.

      All you smart people here on Slashdot should understand by now that anything that any government in the US puts forward should be looked at with serious reservation. Not only that, but if its material that is important to you you should take the time to do your own analysis using both their sources and other sources to verify the truth. Its no longer about which party is screwing you because both parties are doing it. Its about how we fix the situation and the first step in fixing it is becoming aware that both parties are the problem.

    146. Re:It's even worse by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Regardless of anything else, this guy once again proves that you can be technically right, and still lack any common sense.

      Kind of reminds me of the story of the girl who corrected her teacher in front of the whole class that the sunflower is the largest flower, rather than another, and then wondered why the teacher gave her a bad grade. Also relevant / oblig: http://xkcd.com/651/

    147. Re:It's even worse by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm paying 10% more (roughly) in income taxes now than i was three years ago, with no rise in income. President's fault!

      There are a lot of Obama-hating Bullshit Artists on here today: Obama didn't raise taxes, so what did you change? Did you pay off a large mortgage that gave you a large tax deduction? Did you stop donating to charity? The rates are (literally) IDENTICAL to what they were when he took office, so you're either lying or omitting a crucial detail.

      --
      Who did what now?
    148. Re:It's even worse by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Generally: Arrogance. We're full of it

    149. Re:It's even worse by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Safety of passengers is very different from comfort of passengers. The guy wasn't making the passengers unsafe (slogans on t-shirts are rarely unsafe), and any decent person could realize that. He was simply making them uncomfortable.

      It doesn't matter. The pilot has the final say as to who can fly on his (or her) plane.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    150. Re:It's even worse by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Apparently, someone at NFTA recognized this bigoted meathead for the bigoted meathead he was and that nationality is simply a concept that exists solely on paper and cannot be discerned from just looking at someone.”

      I was going to comment on how profiling works regardless of it being PC, but thought I'd check up on Schneier's thoughts, and I find myself reconsidering my position. Its worth a read:
      http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/05/the_trouble_wit.html

      There are still other considerations-- the oft-cited security of Israeli airlines despite the gigantic target painted on them (if muslim terrorists are going to target someone, Israel tends to rank higher on "peoples we dont like" than the US) is often attributed to their use of profiling. But Bruce still makes some pretty good points about cost-benefit of profiling.

    151. Re:It's even worse by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You call it courage, but it doesnt display a large amount of common sense to wear something deliberately provocative and then act surprised when it generates a response. Not gonna say that he should be targetted for wearing a shirt; but you probably wouldnt call someone "brave" for calling their teacher stupid and then wondering why the teacher tends to be harsher in grading your stuff.

      That said, I guess its great that there are other people out there to take the heat and generate the controversy to try and keep the TSA in check.

    152. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The safety of the other passengers. If the pilot felt uncomfortable because it was putting the passengers in a huff (which is stated in TFA, in not so few words), he will eject the passenger in question so the rest of the people will calm down.

    153. Re:It's even worse by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      aptitude to read the label that says "FAA approved".

      Playing devils advocate here, why should anyone trust a random sticker applied to the side of something to be an arbiter of policy?

      Seems like, as you say, they should know (or be able to check) what is / isnt approved, but looking to a sticker to back your case up seems weak.

    154. Re:It's even worse by richlv · · Score: 1

      including "not letting a passenger on board because he feels like it"

      srsly ?
      well, nothing personal, but sounds like bullshit to me :)
      or it would be the most sought workplace for any racist against any race. or female/male hater.

      or maybe that's just bullshit, and pilot can make such decisions based on actual threats (which, after going through the nude scanner/metal detector and other stuff, would be hard to find, wouldn't they ?)

      --
      Rich
    155. Re:It's even worse by richlv · · Score: 1

      what's the connection between safety and being upset ?
      no, that's not a serious question, because i don't think that's even near a valid argument.

      --
      Rich
    156. Re:It's even worse by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      No, you are wrong, it is the end of no matter.
      A pilot has such rights, but most certainly must defend his actions after the fact, in the same way a police officer, or a boat captain must.
      How do I know? my father was a pilot for 40 years, and had to do this several times.

      A pilot better have damn good reasons for using his powers, and someone being a bit annoying is not going to cut it.

      Common uses are having people who are causing a physical threat on a plane physically restrained if in flight or removed from the plane if not.
      They are always careful about the use of such powers, and are expected (and required) to use a suitable level of reaction, although the benifit
      of the doubt is likely to fall their way when it comes to differing stories (same was as for police, etc..)

      Not allowing someone on a plane for wearing somewhat offensive clothing? thats pretty damn far from what they are allowed to do.

      Of course it is quite laughable that they have absolute power with no need to defend themselves, get some perspective.

      HOWEVER, looking at the story thats NOT even what happened. the airport cops (not the TSA) jerked the poor guy around so much the flight was
      going to be held up, so the pilot said he would not wait and left - he refused entry to the guy here as a way of releasing his flight to leave.
      Therefore, the fault is with the rent-a-cops playing power games on the ground, not the pilot.

    157. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No if you wear a Protest shirt while traveling, then you should expect trouble. The Constitution says the government can not interfere with your right to free speech. But private business does not have that limitation. While the TSA is government, Delta is not. He wore the shirt to raise a fuss, mission accomplished.

      BTW while I have no issue with delta in this case, I think they suck in general and would only fly them as a last resort.
      (hope the $50 was worth it Delta)
       

    158. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to use "standing up for his rights" as an argument then you should realise that the pilot has some rights of his own, including "not letting a passenger on board because he feels like it".

      Even so, it's highly unprofessional of the pilot.

      If an asshole were to show up at an ER wearing a "Fuck Doctors" T-shirt, we'd still have to treat him to the best of our ability, as it would be unbecoming to let our judgement be swayed by our own personal emotion of being offended. Even if we were a private hospital, society grants us certain exclusive privileges and status (although these exclusives have been eroding in recent times), in return for the expectation of service to society in a professional manner.

      That being said, if it were a one-on-one private office, then I might choose not to accept that gentleman as a patient (which is considered perfect acceptable both legally and professionally).

    159. Re:It's even worse by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Not that long ago, a black man sitting at a lunch counter made a lot of customers uncomfortable. And denying him service was found to be illegal. The constitution never guarantees a total lack of discomfort.

    160. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      upset != safety

      camper

    161. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The safety of the passengers are the pilot's responsibility.

      Since when is being upset unsafe for passengers? The only possibility of unsafe behavior here is if the upset passengers suddenly became violent. If anything, the upset passengers should have been removed from the plane.

    162. Re:It's even worse by Lucractius · · Score: 1

      Intelligent people can still 'vote stupid' due to politics being treated like religion. The 'My dad always voted republican so I do to' line can come from remarkably intelligent individuals who simply havent bothered or dont care about politics.

      It would be much better if you just added a requirement to explain your vote, then all the reasons as poorly formulated as 'just cause hes white/black/Asian/Muslim' or 'cause my daddy voted for his daddy' get tossed.

      The problem is this is typically considered unfair, prejudiced, etc. I personally have no objection myself to anyone voting... provided they do a proper job of it by understanding & thinking about their choices for more than 5 minutes on voting day.

      --
      XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
    163. Re:It's even worse by Alioth · · Score: 1

      No, the pilot is not obliged to honour it. On an aircraft (or a ship), the captain has the ultimate and final word (criminal law notwithstanding). This of course doesn't stop you from suing the airline afterwards for breach of contract, but if the captain tells you to get off the plane while it's at the gate, you are obliged to get off.

    164. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $65000 is in the top one-third of all Americans. Being in the top 1/3 does not make you "rich" dumbass. That's still middle class

      Well, how much more do you have to have than others to be "rich"? In the top 5%? Top 10%? Top 1%?

      "I'm not rich but I earn more than 2/3 of the working populace." It's pretty subjective, if you ask me.

      you envious, jealous, desiring-to-take-other-people's money prick.

      Wow, you have issues. Try not to take it so personally. Nobody's challenging your manhood by saying $65k is rich.

    165. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being in the top 1/3 does not make you "rich" dumbass.

      I dunno, it seems reasonable to me to say the bottom third is "poor," the top third is "rich," and the middle third is, uh, "middle." That's assuming you define it by income and not by wealth/assets.

      Then again, dividing into equal thirds may not be fair, since the income distribution is not linear - not by a long shot.

    166. Re:It's even worse by hazah · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I have already acknoledged that I was mistaken.

    167. Re:It's even worse by psevetson · · Score: 1

      Sikhs do have a lot of problems from all sorts of directions, when wearing traditional garb, including headdress/"turban" and ceremonial knife. Not least from TSA and other LEOs. Eleven years later, Security still doesn't have it right.

    168. Re:It's even worse by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I have never seen anyone ridiculing the obese who differentiated between glandular condition and sloth or over indulgence. Furthermore, without glandular conditions, thing like poverty and malnutrition can cause obesity without requiring sloth and overindulgence, and they get made fun of just as much.

      I think you suffer from what you describe. Intelligence is relative. The smartest kid in the class can still be one of the least intelligent in the state.

    169. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, MickyTheIdiot appears to be an incorrectly-spelled reference to a character in Doctor Who from 2005-2008.

    170. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy is a PhD student. You don't get to be that if you have a mental disabiity.

    171. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with Law Enforcement. He was removed from the flight by the pilot, at the pilot's discretion, because his shirt was upsetting the passengers. The pilot has that right. The safety of the passengers are the pilot's responsibility.

      Unless it's upsetting the passengers so much that they're likely to riot or panic, then an offensive t-shirt has jack shit to do with safety. And if someone is, then the real danger to the flight is the nut job that's reacting irrationally to flagrant parody, not the bearer of the shirt.

    172. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the pilot had the right to remove a passenger for something as trivial as a T-shirt, it was a clear abuse of that power.

    173. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowadays you're instead a Lone Wolf(tm) - armed with dangerous children and a t-shirt.

    174. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a shirt is indeed a matter of flight safety (irony intended).

    175. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crucial detail bbbaldie omitted is his use of irony.

    176. Re:It's even worse by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      How the hell do you write a sentence with that meaning, and manage to get 5 spelling mistakes in it?!?

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    177. Re:It's even worse by robsku · · Score: 1

      In conclusion: He should not have been hassled. To me that also means that complaining about is justified.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    178. Re:It's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rich and poor are pretty flexible relative terms. I'm earning around 75K a year myself.

      Very true - rich and poor are relative not just to American/European conditions but around the world as well.

      Watch The Journey of Man and see Spencer Wells visit the oldest known bush tribe in Africa, and the nomadic Chukchi people of Siberia. These people have nothing - it will make you feel immensely rich just for being a denizen of the First World!

    179. Re:It's even worse by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen the video but have traveled in some bad parts of Mexico. Even homeless people here in the states have a better standard of living than many of the people I met there. And like you mentioned their are people still in subsistence level situations day to day with no real hope of ever not being that way.

    180. Re:It's even worse by alexo · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with Law Enforcement. He was removed from the flight by the pilot, at the pilot's discretion, because his shirt was upsetting the passengers. The pilot has that right. The safety of the passengers are the pilot's responsibility. [emphasis mine]

      assert(upset != unsafe);

  3. seriously? by jsepeta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what kind of dipshit is afraid of a t-shirt? obviously this guy is being pushed around because of his name and genetic background. i smell LAWSUIT.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    1. Re:seriously? by cusco · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would totally do this, but my wife would kill me. I'm far more afraid of her displeasure than that of some TSA idiot.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:seriously? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      So I am not the only one who holds this belief. My wife always gets mad at me when the clerks at the store forget to disable the anti theft tags and I set off the alarm and just keep walking. I can only imagine her rage if I were to wear an anti TSA shirt to the airport.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:seriously? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Damn near everybody that's committed a terrorist offence in the UK has been white (and funded by US republicans, but that's another story). How is racial profiling going to help, there?

    4. Re:seriously? by pr0nbot · · Score: 3, Funny

      I once unthinkingly put on a t-shirt that had a machine gun on it on the day I was travelling. At security I was asked to turn it inside out (by the guys with actual machine guns), which I did, and that was that. Thankfully I wasn't wearing one of my other t-shirts...

    5. Re:seriously? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess a t-shirt with a hand pointing to your wife with the caption "She likes being patted down." is out of the question.

    6. Re:seriously? by shentino · · Score: 0

      Him being stupid and chumming the waters while swimming among sharks does not make it ok for there to be sharks there.

    7. Re:seriously? by mounthood · · Score: 2

      what kind of dipshit is afraid of a t-shirt? obviously this guy is being pushed around because of his name and genetic background. i smell LAWSUIT.

      IANAL, but all of this has happened before (and it will all happen again):

      Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The Court overturned a disturbing the peace conviction of a man wearing a jacket bearing the phrase, "Fuck the Draft."

      Holding
      The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. Court of Appeal of California reversed.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    8. Re:seriously? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would only wear that if I wanted a divorce or felt the need to be turned into a eunuch while I sleep.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    9. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly white should be subject to more detailed screening as they commit more terrorist acts.

    10. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "My wife always gets mad at me when the clerks at the store forget to disable the anti theft tags and I set off the alarm and just keep walking."

      Good for you! When I go to Fry's (not too often - hate that they check receipts) they say "let me see your receipt", so I hold it up where they can see it and don't even slow down. They can walk beside me and look, but I'm not stopping - it's MY stuff at this point.

    11. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the majority of trouble we've had over here in the past 50 years has been based in Ireland. Profile all gingers perhaps?

    12. Re:seriously? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      As a new agency they are very sensitive to their public image.
      http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/employees/
      A lot of people where rushed into deep gov positions. A vast uniformed new group not connected to older US departments was created and needed staff.
      The reports of corruption and criminality just wont stop due the the need for rapid growth and "quality" of basic background database searches.
      A criminal background check in the US is hard to do due to older files in each State - you have to find family, friends, schools, past work, local LEO.
      Real people have to go down the applicants life story, in real life. Unless your wanting to work for the DIA, NSA, CIA dont expect any kind of diligence.
      A cleared person with a laptop making sure the applicant was a US citizen and not 'wanted' vs the expected longer, deep criminal history requests.
      Its not really fear, its rush and fun of raw power - think in terms of the new "Freeze" command as obedience training.
      Now its your t shirt - next is more of an East German experience - what would the public "take" in the 1945-50's?
      No unique tshirt for you - you can take the train right? Drive? Bus? The Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response ( VIPR) teams are moving around more
      transport hubs in the USA. - well beyond the "suspicionless search and seizures" within 100 miles of the border.
      Give it 10-20 years and it will all be normal - you will be living in a version 2.0 of East Germany - done better this time.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    13. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea seriously...

      There are enough people who have anxiety over flying anyway, and this insensitive clod got what he deserved. I didn't know what 'zomg' means and I doubt most of the over 50 crowd does. I can certainly see people taking him for a threat.

      The stresses in flying in these times means that a company like Delta doesn't need some idiot stirring the pot. I don't agree with most airline idiocy but they get a thumbs up in this case.

    14. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this has nothing to do with the states or the federal government. It was the Delta pilot who was the one who asked him to leave the plane. You have no right to fly on Delta's planes and they have the prerogative of throwing you off if they think you'll cause trouble.

    15. Re:seriously? by deanklear · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's something more pathetic:

      When Charles Swift, a Lieutenant Commander with JAG, went to meet his client and terrorist suspect Salim Hamdan, the jailers at Guantanamo asked him to take off his name tag, so the suspect wouldn't know who he was. Swift asked how he was expected to establish a relationship with his client if he isn't allowed to know his name, and eventually told them that he wasn't going to take it off.

      Hamdan was laying in his cell, with his hands shackled to his feet in a fetal position. Once Swift convinced them to let him out of his chains, he then tried to shake Hamdan's hand as they were introduced, and again, the officials there said they weren't allowed to have any physical contact for national security reasons.

      In the documentary Secrecy, he stated the following:

      If you're to the point that you can be the executioner without telling anyone about it, and not having anyone look at it, and being able to do all that in secret, what's left? What's left?

      If I can decide the reasons you will be held in jail for the rest of your life, and I alone get to know them, and I don't have to tell anyone, what's left?

      When laid bare, their argument is, there is no limit on Presidential power. The President ultimately decides his power, and no one else. Yet, fundamentally that was what they had claimed for the commissions. Fundamentally, that was what they had claimed for interrogations for wiretapping, all of these things, and done it in secrecy.

      But the Hamdan case had the opportunity to begin to pull back the blanket of that bare, raw assertion of power.

      Never mistake the actual purpose of the TSA and the security state: it's a raw assertion of power of the Executive to ignore due process. That erosion of the foundations of our legal system represents a continuing threat to our democracy, and at least in my opinion, far exceeds the dangers posed by terrorism. It's literally eliminating the difference between our society and the society that totalitarian extremists desire; the only difference is in who has the key to our chains.

      What happened to the Hamdan case? The Supreme Court ruled the commissions at Guantanamo lacked "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."

      In response, the US Congress proposed a new law, the Military Commissions Act, aimed trying to give the President the power to create a commission that could ignore the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. And it passed in 2006.

    16. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. Were they afraid you were going to cut out a miniature cloth machine gun during flight and use it to mow down passengers and hijack the plane?

      I mean, obviously you couldn't do that because they would have confiscated your scissors at the security checkpoint already.

    17. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rated funny, but I think most normal people wouldn't risk something like this, if it had the slightest chance of becoming a discomfort for the friends/family they're travelling with.

      They'll now both be on the TSA shit list, wife too. Even if she divorces him, she's stuck with her name on that list, unless she changes it back. Fucked up, but government institutions are more vengeful than most other organized crime syndicates.

      Conclusion? This is either intended as a TSA bash to make them lots of negative publicity, or that guy really IS a complete idiot and should be hassled (preferably permanently removed from the gene pool before it's too late) even if TSA, pilot, airlines, whoever is in the wrong.

    18. Re:seriously? by mbone · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not sure my wife would wait that long...

    19. Re:seriously? by mbone · · Score: 2

      Actually, they can throw you off for more or less any reason they want to make. The pilot is the Captain. The plane doesn't take off until he says it does. Doesn't mean there might not be consequences, but, in the end, it's his call.

    20. Re:seriously? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      She's possibly more experienced with going from store to store to store and having the alarm go off when you enter/exit every second store because one store forgot to remove their damn anti theft tags.

    21. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wishing I had mod points right now.

    22. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ... funny ... I pretty much do the same. I typically say "You forgot to say "please"." and keep on walking.

      I will try your way next time ...

    23. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you put up with some shrew who becomes hostile toward you at the drop of a hat?

    24. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really make it sound like you married a monster. Why don't you want a divorce?

    25. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they're a minority population, look at the whole world.

    26. Re:seriously? by herring0 · · Score: 1

      My wife gets pissed when I do that. She also gets mighty perturbed when I respond with "No" when clerks ask for a phone number, zip code, SSN (at doctor offices and schools), or other unnecessary information.

    27. Re:seriously? by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      I knew someone whose shoes would set off the scanners. That was always a hoot.

    28. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to stop focusing on party. BOTH parties are at fault. BOTH parties should be held accountable for their actions. The party affiliation is nothing more than a different mascot.

    29. Re:seriously? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Just call this guy Mr. Heisenberg...

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    30. Re:seriously? by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      That's what's wrong with the world.
      People aren't willing to risk their children, wives, house, and job for something like that.
      Now I am not better.
      With "Bread and Circuses" I wouldn't either.

      I wonder how much I would have to pay a sick homeless person to wear a shirt like that.
      When you have nothing to lose, you risk more.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
    31. Re:seriously? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Good for you! When I go to Fry's (not too often - hate that they check receipts) they say "let me see your receipt", so I hold it up where they can see it and don't even slow down. They can walk beside me and look, but I'm not stopping - it's MY stuff at this point.

      Geez, I don't even hold it up...I have the receipts in my bag, and when they ask I say politely "No thanks.."...and keep on walking without looking back.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    32. Re:seriously? by drb_chimaera · · Score: 1

      Change back from what? From the original blog post one of the things the transit security wombles picked up on was that she had a different name to him:

      The female transit cop found it more than a little bit suspicious that this woman claiming to be my wife didnâ(TM)t share my last name. She proceeded to question me about it further. âoeAnd sheâ(TM)s your wife? How long have you been married? And she refused to take your name? "WHY wouldn't she?â

      .

      Admittedly that's being pretty pedantic for which I apologize, but it did catch my attention...

    33. Re:seriously? by Tesen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I always continue walking out of a store when some one asks "Can I see your receipt please?" I say, "Nope. This is now my property so hands off." and continue on my way. I had one dude at a well known chain of stores try to step in front of me, heh - I picked up the bags walked around him and I bowed my head and said, "Thank you sir, for returning my cart." quite loudly and left.

      Honestly? The first time I did this I was shitting myself - I wanted to play by the rules and not get in trouble or cause trouble. The issue? That is WHAT they are programming us to do - follow the rules, look at your shoes and never look at 'authority' in the eye or question anything they do. If you accept this verbatim with out question then you just agreed to no longer live in a free country. Imagine myself as a strong male being worried about doing this to a freaking store clerk, how do people who are less physically able and emotionally as me able to do this when confronted by actual 'authority' figures? The answer is they cannot!

      As Maria Mitchell once said: Question everything!

      Tesen

    34. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you'd have a point if weren't for the fact that due process is a concept aforded to American citizens, and not enemy combatants. These guys aren't just locked up in gitmo for the fun of it. There's usually a good reason they're there. Personally I'm ok with making their stay unpleasant to discourage those who might otherwise think it's no big deal to attack America. The Geneva looks real good on paper, but you can bet that the terrorists don't abide by it. How can you fight an enemy with your hands tied behind your back? You do what's necessary to win. Leave fighting fair to the folks that like to lose.

    35. Re:seriously? by cusco · · Score: 1

      For the phone number I always use (321) 123-4567. There's probably a couple hundred people around the country using the same number, can't help but think it messes with their data warehouse in some small fashion. I always get a chuckle when some clerk thinks that's actually my phone number.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    36. Re:seriously? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Terrorists in Latin America have been known to recruit terminally ill heavily indebted people as suicide bombers with the promise to take care of their family after completion of the 'mission'. Guess that's a slightly better reason than 70 virgins.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    37. Re:seriously? by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, we do not HAVE to do naked body scans. We used to be just fine with metal detectors that were de-tuned to the point they wouldn't notice a pocket knife, a simple x-ray for luggage, and a bored security officer who really didn't care what your shirt said or what shade your skin was.

      The next time the national anthem is played, think carefully. Perhaps you should just remain seated if you don't believe in it.

    38. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly most terrorists have been Islamists. Therefore ask people what their religion is and subject Muslims to a higher level of screening.

    39. Re:seriously? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Wow hey lets play the race card when shit don't go your way.

      Hey, hillbilly, here's a protip (you guys like that term): learn to speak your [own language!] properly. ;)

    40. Re:seriously? by swb · · Score: 1

      I was at an Old Navy with my wife and son. We stood as a group, bantering with each other and the clerks while we were checked out (there were almost no other customers, IIRC).

      As we left, my wife and son got waylaid for some reason or other and I ended up about 15 feet ahead of them. When I walked out the exit, the anti-theft alarm went off.

      A clerk by the door walked up and I said "my wife back there has all our stuff, I don't have any of it."

      She looked at me and said "did you put any of it in your pocket?" and I replied "no" and she said "well it must have gone off for a reason".

      By this time I was annoyed and said "Maybe it was all the metal in this?" -- and I opened my fleece vest and showed her my holstered handgun.

      She looked bug-eyed and just said "Oh, yeah, probably" and we walked out to the car and drove away. That was even better than just walking away.

    41. Re:seriously? by toriver · · Score: 1

      The red hair and shamrock lapel pin gives them away, though.

    42. Re:seriously? by hajus · · Score: 1

      M'eh. I've gone from store to store on purpose when this happens. It's fun.

    43. Re:seriously? by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Nice. Can I ask what state? Here I think you could get a brandishing charge for that!

    44. Re:seriously? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      a lower key way of doing this is to pull out your wallet and flip to the "Page" where your CCW is slotted (reverse of your DL maybe?)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    45. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

      That's the first paragraph of the opening statement of the Nuremberg trials by Justice Jackson. Think about the horrors of World War 2, and compare to the horrors inflicted by the terrorists, then read your own post again, then Justice Jackson words again and do what I do: weep.

    46. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you make an excellent point. It is surprisingly more difficult to defy authority figures then many here sometimes realize. It may be the correct thing to do, but it is not that easy.

    47. Re:seriously? by swb · · Score: 1

      Minnesota.

      I don't think they could call it brandishing. I never touched the weapon and it remained holstered in a full, thumbrake holster. I only exposed it, quickly -- and open carry is 100% legal in MN.

      But I know how suburban cops operate and I don't think I'll do it again.

    48. Re:seriously? by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      It would fall under "intimidating display" 'round these parts. Be safe and have fun though.

    49. Re:seriously? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Clearly, most terrorists have been (ostensibly) Christians, either Protestant or Catholic.

      There's been one not-very-effective terrorist attack in the UK by Islamists.

    50. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did Maria Mitchell also say to always be an uncooprative fuckwit, who can't even show their receipt to a confused storeclerk?... Fuckers.

    51. Re:seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in those cases where a club membership - like BJs - requires it, after the exchange of cash for goods, the "confused store clerk" has no more right to view your receipt than Joe Panhandler on the corner. Not having left the store makes absolutely no difference: your just-purchased goods are yours. If I want to show you what I bought, I'll let you. Otherwise, no offense, but, fuck off.

  4. TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing her by Maow · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the same site:

    What would have likely been a routine flight out of a Florida airport this weekend ended with a woman being sent to the emergency room after TSA agents insisted on groping a traumatized rape victim in a security pat-down that put her in the hospital.

    Live free or die indeed.

  5. TSA got bored by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If the Miss Universe pageant had been boarding that plane, the TSA would have been to busy putting them through the body scanner to even notice this guy's shirt.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:TSA got bored by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFA. TSA didn't do it. Delta did. The TSA passed him, and Delta pitched a fit.

    2. Re:TSA got bored by cffrost · · Score: 2

      If the Miss Universe pageant had been boarding that plane, the TSA would have been to busy putting them through the body scanner to even notice this guy's shirt.

      I despise the TSA as much as the next informed citizen that values liberty, but this passenger was thrown off the plane by a Delta Airlines pilot.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    3. Re:TSA got bored by camperdave · · Score: 1

      RTFA. TSA didn't do it. Delta did. The TSA passed him, and Delta pitched a fit.

      Delta cleared him too. It was the pilot who had him tossed. That's when Delta changed their mind, siding with their pilot, and put him on a later flight.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:TSA got bored by camperdave · · Score: 1

      ... but this passenger was thrown off the plane by a Delta Airlines pilot.

      Yes, by a Delta Airlines Pilot who has the responsibility to ensure that everyone has as safe and pleasant and timely* flight as possible. The pilot has the right to deny anyone access to the plane if they feel that person will be the source of in-flight difficulties.

      *I suspect that the real reason is that the multiple screenings and security checks and other nonsense were putting a serious time crunch on the flight, so the pilot just left them behind.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:TSA got bored by cffrost · · Score: 2

      ... but this passenger was thrown off the plane by a Delta Airlines pilot.

      Yes, by a Delta Airlines Pilot who has the responsibility to ensure that everyone has as safe and pleasant and timely* flight as possible. The pilot has the right to deny anyone access to the plane if they feel that person will be the source of in-flight difficulties.

      "In-flight difficulties?" Like what, a couple being lynched by a mob of unruly, cowardly passengers who "feel uncomfortable" about a brown man wearing a satirical t-shirt? Give me a break. There's zero indication that this guy was unpleasant to be around, let alone harmful. I'd rather fly with that guy and his wife than the un-American, "uncomfortable" assholes who should have been coming to the defense of their fellow citizen instead of causing trouble.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    6. Re:TSA got bored by camperdave · · Score: 1

      "In-flight difficulties?" Like what, a couple being lynched by a mob of unruly, cowardly passengers who "feel uncomfortable" about a brown man wearing a satirical t-shirt?

      Yes, exactly.

      There's zero indication that this guy was unpleasant to be around, let alone harmful. I'd rather fly with that guy and his wife than the un-American, "uncomfortable" assholes who should have been coming to the defense of their fellow citizen instead of causing trouble.

      Same here. Except substitute human being for citizen. A person's nationality shouldn't matter.

      Like I said, the pilot was probably trying to get the flight going with the least hassle.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:TSA got bored by sjames · · Score: 1

      If he was actually worried about the potential actions of an 'uncomfortable' passenger, that that passenger is the one who should have been put off of the plane.

    8. Re:TSA got bored by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Same here. Except substitute human being for citizen. A person's nationality shouldn't matter.

      I agree, I should have said that instead. I probably wrote "citizen" in order to highlight that these were Americans getting/allowing another American kicked off for exercising a "guaranteed" US right in an harmless and lawful manner. My apologies if I came off as nationalistic; I'm not.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    9. Re:TSA got bored by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Thank you!

  6. fear itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hi folks,

    Just as a brief FYI, we're REALLY starting to worry about you Yanks.
    Please get your house in order, before things get truly out of control.
    If you wait much longer (and we may be talking seconds here), the choice will be gone.

    With compassion,
    the Rest of the World

    1. Re:fear itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dear Rest of World,

      Fuck off.

      Love,

      Uncle Sam

    2. Re:fear itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Precisely the sort of attitude that got you in this mess in the first place.

    3. Re:fear itself by Urza9814 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dear rest of the world,

      We're trying, but as you can see in the other replies, we've got some real idiots to deal with...

        - the (intelligent citizens of the) USA

    4. Re:fear itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "mess" you mean "dominating every other country in the world at the top of the food chain" then sure, it is a "mess". And we have only been around a couple hundred years. Where are you from and what has your country done that is so great?

    5. Re:fear itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The revolution through which the American nation is passing is not a mere local convulsion. It is a war for principle, which concerns all mankind. It is the war for the working classes of mankind as against the usurpations of privileged aristocracies. You can make nothing else out of it. That is the reason why, like a shaft of light in the Judgment Day, it has gone through all nations -- dividing to the right and left the multitudes. For us and our cause: all the common working classes of Europe, all that toil and sweat and are oppressed. Against us: all privileged classes, nobles, princes, bankers, and great manufacturers, and all who live at ease. A silent instinct piercing to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, has gone through the earth, and sent every soul with instinctive certainty where it belongs. No sophistry could blind or deceive them. They knew that our cause was their cause, and they have suffered their part heroically as if fighting by our side, because they knew that our victory was to be their victory. On the other side, all aristocrats and holders of exclusive privileges have felt the instinctive opposition, and the sympathy with struggling aristocracy, for they too feel that our victory will be their doom.

      Harriet Beecher Stowe 1863

    6. Re:fear itself by sjwt · · Score: 1

      Dear Uncle Sam,

      Grow up and learn to play nice.

      Love,

      The Rest of the world.

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    7. Re:fear itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rome was at the top once too.

      So was Greece.

      So was Egypt.

      So was Babylon.

    8. Re:fear itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear America, Sorry old chap, we've been there already. It doesn't last, you know. Still chin up, things could be worse! Yours, Great Britain

    9. Re:fear itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear England,

      We are sorry that you are still mad for kicking your butter-filled-redcoat asses in the Revolutionary War. Seriously, who wears red uniforms to battle?

      Love,

      Uncle Sam

    10. Re:fear itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear The Rest of the World,
      You are all far from shining utopias yourself. We all have problems to deal with. Get over yourself.
      Sincerely
      Not you.

    11. Re:fear itself by Maow · · Score: 1

      Dear Rest of World,

      Fuck off.

      Love,

      Uncle Sam

      Ah, I see you embrace your fascism.

      Enjoy then...

    12. Re:fear itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear rest of the world,

      We're trying, but as you can see in the other replies, we've got some real idiots to deal with...

        - the (intelligent citizens of the) USA

      And as one can tell from statements by a certain senate candidate in Missouri, statements by an elected judge in Texas, politicians in Kentucky questioning how "evolution" could appear in a biology test, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum, we know that it's going to be a long uphill slog as there are a very large number of idiots to deal with.

    13. Re:fear itself by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      If by "mess" you mean "dominating every other country in the world at the top of the food chain" ...

      No; actually you got into that position by being nice to French people who made it possible for you to escape from the brits. Oh; and trading with large areas of the rest of the world. Oh; and being able to represent yourselves as "land of the free; home of the brave". In fact; your interventions on the side of other people in WWII, very much late, but still much better than never, together with the massive loans you gave out to European nations in the Marshall Plan were almost entirely what set you up for the dominance you achieved from the 1950s to and beyond the fall of the iron curtain. It's your inability to engage with the rest of the world in a constructive way which is getting China into places like Africa nowadays.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    14. Re:fear itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi folks,

      Just as a brief FYI, we're REALLY starting to worry about you Yanks. Please get your house in order, before things get truly out of control. If you wait much longer (and we may be talking seconds here), the choice will be gone.

      With compassion, the Rest of the World

      Dear Rest of the World:
      Do we achieve this with or without weapons? Just curious...
      Sincerely, the American People

    15. Re:fear itself by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Dear intelligent citizens of the USA that agree with this:

      You're far too few, and the idiots have you vastly outnumbered, and the idiocy is spreading like a cancer. It's a lost cause. Get out while you still can.

      - another intelligent citizen of the USA who's given up hope

    16. Re:fear itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep telling yourself that while you are being groped :)

    17. Re:fear itself by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Thank You for your compassion.

      Unfortunately, things are already truly out of control.

    18. Re:fear itself by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      You see the depth of the problem we are dealing with here? It's sad because the US would have so much going for it and really has done so much for science, space, medicine and quality of life. It was a great place to grow up in the 70's but it's really heading in a bad direction now.

  7. KKK to TSA by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looks like the KKK renamed their acronym to something more paletable.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    1. Re:KKK to TSA by Vicarius · · Score: 2

      In all fairness, it was Delta employees who pushed the issue overboard rather than TSA.

    2. Re:KKK to TSA by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, yes and no. It was the Delta employees who kicked them off the plane, but it was the TSA employees who were the ones actually causing all the inconvenience. They did a pragmatic thing for their other customers, but for the family it is being a victim twice.. once by the TSA, and a second time by Delta who, instead of going 'hey TSA, leave our paying customer alone' said 'well TSA, you are harassing one of our customers, and that harassment is impacting the rest of our customers, so we will punish the person you don't like so you will leave us alone'.

      Which is, in its own way, pretty crummy.

    3. Re:KKK to TSA by mbone · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you read the article, TSA passed him just fine, it was a Delta employee who triggered the mess, and a Delta employee who wouldn't let him on the plane. Once Delta raises a flag, of course the TSA is going to have to do something, but they actually seem pretty reasonable from the report in TOA.

    4. Re:KKK to TSA by the_B0fh · · Score: 2, Informative

      "He looks foreign" in the latter part of the article, by the TSA agent asking for permission to put him through the wringer.

      Did you happen to miss that?

    5. Re:KKK to TSA by PTBarnum · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did you happen to miss that "Mark" was an NFTA officer, not a TSA officer, or that his request to "put him through the wringer" was denied?

    6. Re:KKK to TSA by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 5, Informative

      "He looks foreign" in the latter part of the article, by the TSA agent asking for permission to put him through the wringer. Did you happen to miss that?

      He didn't miss that, because that's not what the article says:

      Not before being interrogated further, though, and this time by local law enforcement officers with the NFTA. Even after being booted, Arijit says that transit cops questioned him relentlessly, asking him about where he got his shirt and for details about his family.

      According to Arijits account, an NFTA [(Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority)] officer named Mark radioed in on his walkie-talkie for permission to further interrogate the dangerous potential terrorist.

      “He gave a stupid answer,” Arijit recalls hearing the officer say to a supervisor. “And he looks foreign.”

      The NFTA is not TSA. It's a local transit police department. No, that doesn't make what happened to this guy OK. It's very far from OK. But the principle villains are the pilot and one local police officer, who was overruled by his supervisor.

      It doesn't help to bring attention to problems like this inaccurately. Doing that simply gives the people in charge an easy way to ignore and marginalize the complaints.

    7. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem wasn't the TSA, it was Delta and the local Airport Police. From the guys blog...

      the lead TSA agent recognized the absurdity of the situation and even apologized I had to go through all this, saying that he found the entire situation to be ridiculous and that he’d let me fly. The same cannot be same about Delta or NFTA transit police. Shortly afterwards, I labeled the transit police as being “thuggish brutes” and I stand by that characterization. As for Delta, their actions could be at best described as cowardly and racist. (There’s much wrong with the TSA and the entire airport security operation — to wit — but in this case, the TSA agents I personally interacted with were courteous and professional.)"

    8. Re:KKK to TSA by scharkalvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I haven't flow Delta in years, and after hearing that they don't believe in the US constitution and free speech I will NEVER fly them again.
      Think I should linkt to this in my blog.

    9. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That statement was not made by a TSA agent, but by someone from the local transit police.

    10. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe YOU missed that part. Because the article *clearly* states "According to Arijits account, an NFTA officer named Mark radioed in on his walkie-talkie for permission to further interrogate the dangerous potential terrorist. “He gave a stupid answer,” Arijit recalls hearing the officer say to a supervisor. “And he looks foreign.”"

    11. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Time to sue the TSA, Delta and that employee out of existence.

      Freedom of Speech baby... TSA - Go fuck yourselves - you're the only ones who would. Delta - Haven't flown since 9/11 - never will again. Delta Employee - have fun when your unemployment runs out. Pilot? You're permanently grounded for being a fucktard.

    12. Re:KKK to TSA by jellomizer · · Score: 0

      As we get a one sided view from a hostile observer.

      For some reason I think it is more then just the shirt, or the fact he isn't white, I think it was most likely do the fact that he was probably being a jerk to the TSA, just to prove how bad they are.

      I have traveled with business partners who are native of different countries. They for the most part go in and out just as fast as everyone else. I think once he had his laptop checked. But he was polite they were polite about it... No major problems at all. But in my travels I have seen white people being a jerk and the TSA gave them a much harder time.

      Rule 1, when dealing with people with authority. Treat them with respect. They are granted Power and authority, treat them with respect otherwise they will use it more. This applies to Police, Judges, Government Leaders... They are allowed extra powers, for the most part they refrain from using them, but if you are going to make their lives difficult, they will use their power to make yours difficult too. You can disagree with them, but you need keep respectful of the fact they are in a position of authority. Yes you say a TSA agent is just a security guard... Perhaps so, but they have the power to allow or disallow you to the flight, so it doesn't matter how much they get paid, or their education level is, they are allowed to say yes or no.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    13. Re:KKK to TSA by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Businesses do not have to abide by the First amendment. Bad PR or not.

    14. Re:KKK to TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      Nobody said they HAVE to abide by it. Funny thing though, if they don't *voluntarily* abide by it, I avoid using their services.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    15. Re:KKK to TSA by toriver · · Score: 2

      Businesses claim First amendment rights (regarding marketing and so on) though, so it would be hypocritical of them to deny that to their paying customers.

    16. Re:KKK to TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rule 1, when dealing with people with authority. Treat them with respect.

      Funny I thought 'Rule 1' was 'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech'

      Silly me.

      There are times when security trumps free speech ("Fire!" in a theater, etc.) but those are few and rightly heavily restricted. Wearing a fucking T-Shirt mocking someone is NOT one of those cases.

      Can those in power overreact? Sure, but that doesn't make it right.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    17. Re:KKK to TSA by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2
      "Mark" who said that works for the NFTA, not the TSA. In this case "Mark" is personally a shit, but the TSA comes out of this fine. In fact, why don't we just quote Arijit:

      It is worth noting that once TSA was involved and had to question me about the meaning of my shirt, they did treat me with the utmost respect and without any malice. Indeed, the lead TSA agent recognized the absurdity of the situation and even apologized I had to go through all this, saying that he found the entire situation to be ridiculous and that he’d let me fly. The same cannot be same about Delta or NFTA transit police.

      so what? Well; again from Arijit; at the end of his blog entry.

      Write to Delta, their CEO, to the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Transit Police, and to the feds who are in charge of ensuring that passengers do not have their civil rights violated.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    18. Re:KKK to TSA by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Only if they allow blacks to join.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    19. Re:KKK to TSA by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would it be hypocritical? Just because I claim I have personal free speech rights doesn't mean I have to put up with you shouting obscenities in my house.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    20. Re:KKK to TSA by Surt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Treat them with respect if you want things to get steadily worse in the long run. Treat them with respect if you don't want things to get much worse in the short run.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    21. Re:KKK to TSA by SmilingBoy · · Score: 1

      That was a guy from the NFTA that said that, not TSA.

    22. Re:KKK to TSA by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The retard got what he deserved. He chose to wear a shirt to get attention and didn't like the attention he got as a result. That's up there with thinking it's a great idea of wearing a gay pride shirt and prancing around making an ass of yourself at a country fried rock concert to get attention for your political slant, cause, or moral views and being surprised when you get your ass beat by all the rednecks around you. Save that kind of shit for the appropriate venue, like your blog, with your like minded friends, or gay pride parades, places where you're not on enemy soil surrounded by the enemy itself. If you're determined to go to where the enemy lives, there is safety in numbers, don't be stupid and do that shit solo or you will get the attention you're looking for and you won't like it.

      Clearly anyone who disagrees with the erosion of rights and the ever ballooning tyranny of the government should be treated shabbily.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    23. Re:KKK to TSA by Nyder · · Score: 1

      "He looks foreign" in the latter part of the article, by the TSA agent asking for permission to put him through the wringer.

      Did you happen to miss that?

      Damn straight he looked foreign, if you aren't a Native American, then yes, you look foreign in this wonderful melting pot of a nation we call the United States of America.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    24. Re:KKK to TSA by uniquename72 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Undoing accidental downvote (because, you know, it would be awful to just allow votes to be changed).

    25. Re:KKK to TSA by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      Who was shouting obscenities, again?

    26. Re:KKK to TSA by budgenator · · Score: 1

      "Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, the law enforcement agency that patrols Western New York’s mass transit system. ...
      According to Arijits account, an NFTA officer named Mark radioed in on his walkie-talkie for permission to further interrogate the dangerous potential terrorist.
      “He gave a stupid answer,” Arijit recalls hearing the officer say to a supervisor. “And he looks foreign.”
      “Certainly he wasn’t implying that dark-skinned people are not real Americans and that white people are the only true Americans,” Arijit writes in part of his snark-filled synopsis. “Fortunately, Mark’s request was denied. Apparently, someone at NFTA recognized this bigoted meathead for the bigoted meathead he was and that nationality is simply a concept that exists solely on paper and cannot be discerned from just looking at someone.”"
        Not TSA,

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    27. Re:KKK to TSA by Surt · · Score: 1

      The guy with them plastered on his shirt. But this misses the point. I don't have to let you quietly express support for Mitt Romney in my house either.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    28. Re:KKK to TSA by TheGavster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are allowed extra powers, for the most part they refrain from using them, but if you are going to make their lives difficult, they will use their power to make yours difficult too.

      Yes, I do seem to recall the reason behind empowering police and the justice system being to make life difficult for anyone who sticks their head up. It's time we lifted the burden of preserving public safety from these people; they clearly have enough abuse already!

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    29. Re:KKK to TSA by steveg · · Score: 2

      You're missing the part where the TSA didn't give him a particularly bad time. They passed him through, said he was OK to board.

      Then a Delta employee at the gate freaked out and called for more questioning and made a big hullabaloo about it, resulting in a big delay for the flight and ultimately causing the pilot to refuse him boarding privileges. The TSA was never very upset at him, nor he with them. That wasn't the case for the local transit cops, but they aren't the TSA.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    30. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rule 1, when dealing with people with authority. Treat them with respect.

      Tell that to the civil servants who blatently disrespect their employers. The government serves the people, not the other way around.

    31. Re:KKK to TSA by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Not really. You see, the first amendment doesn't say you have a right to free speech, it says the government cannot deny it. It says nothing to restrict anyone but government from denying free speech to anyone.

      The US constitution give you absolutely no rights. It stops government from taking them away.

    32. Re:KKK to TSA by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      This isn't really your house though. It's a public company doing business with the public. Can you refuse to sell shoes or food to someone with a Mitt Romney or Burak Obama Tshirt on?

    33. Re:KKK to TSA by JayBat · · Score: 2
      You're a little short on reading comprehension, there, cupcake. Go back and RTFA.

      TSA had no problem with Arijit and his wife, and properly passed them right through the checkpoint and on to their gate. It was an idiot Delta gate agent, most likely aided by one or more idiot Delta passengers that decided that Arijit was the wrong color errr, I mean, a threat to safety.

      Thereafter, like-minded idiots where found from many different organizations (if you were there, *you* could have volunteered!), but TSA behaved professionally throughout from Arijit's description.

    34. Re:KKK to TSA by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yes. Those aren't on the small list of protected classes for which you are not allowed to discriminate in business.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    35. Re:KKK to TSA by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That's not really the case in a lot of places. Especially in California with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. You generally have to show a reason that impedes your business, offends a law, or harrases your clientele in order to refuse service to anyone.

      But then again, in a lot of other places, it is perfectly acceptable. Although I think if your business is open to the public, it should be open to the entire public else specifically state who it is not open to.

    36. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, here in Japan I have the legal right to wear a shirt that says "Fuck the police!" (In Japanese, of course)
      But.. that doesn't mean it's a bright idea.
      The police here have more power than in many countries like in the US, but they are also less likely to use it. They aren't going to chase me down and beat me because of that shirt.

      But... they might remember me. And next time I have a problem and run to the police for help... they might say "Hey, aren't you the guy with the 'Fuck the police!' shirt?"

      At a minimum, it shows bad taste.

      (Of course, I have much more respect for the police than the TSA, but the point still holds..)

    37. Re:KKK to TSA by Surt · · Score: 1

      I don't really get that from:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act

      It sounds to me like political leanings and speech are pretty explicitly not covered by Unruh.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    38. Re:KKK to TSA by SourceFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you also think Rosa Parks 'got what she deserved' when they arrested her?

      --
      My other UID is three digits.
    39. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you can. It's sometimes bad PR, but any business has the right to refuse to do business with you and also demand that you leave their property for any reason or no reason at all because private property is private property whether it's your house or a McDonald's. Even your local City Hall, Police station, or Hospital can have you removed if the building administrators do not want you there.

    40. Re:KKK to TSA by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

      The courts seemed to disagree with your and Wikipedia's interpretation. Perhaps the prohibition is built within the case law but my understanding was the law was specifically designed because hippies and what not were being refused service. You do not get more political then hippies protesting wars.

    41. Re:KKK to TSA by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure congress made any law saying you cannot wear a certain Tshirt. I'm also pretty sure the guy you are replying to spoke about how you treat others ends up influencing how others treat you. Again, not a law congress made.

      Is it right? probably not. But i have seen some real jackasses where i thought it might be justified to give them a rough time. This entire situation reminds me of about 25 years ago when some teen parked at the neighbors house was blasting the base style music. I had a sick kid (1vyear old) and it was echoing inside my house waking her up. I asked them to keep it down. The neighbor kid who was generally well behaved said sure thing, they didn't realize it was carrying inside the house. The punk who owned the car turned it up saying it was a free country. I then heard the kid crying again and got mad, grabbed a screwdriver that happened to be there and jammed it into his speakers ruining his base and two 6x9s in the rear deck. problem solved. was i right in doing it, no- but I have rarely felt as justified in doing anything since then.

      (yes. he called the cops and tried to sue me. I got less then a slap on the wrist-- $80 fine and costs both suspended on 1 years good behavior and a disorderly conduct on my record, paid his father for the speakers, and found the cops and judges to be very sympathetic to me. The kid ended up getting 20 hour community service for violating a noise ordinance)

    42. Re:KKK to TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh, wearing a T-Shirt with a message is most definitely 'speech'. See the DeCSS fun where the code was put on a T-shirt than then was protected as 'speech'.

      Delta is not the government. However there were multiple government entities represented there and they weren't telling Delta to stand down, they were trying to take this guy in for *more* questioning.

      You treat authority with respect...when they deserve it. Simply wearing a T-Shirt is NOT treating them with disrespect.

      Going by what we know of the situation, he did nothing to warrant such intensive treatment by multiple (armed) security guards. He said he clearly stated it was mocking the state of security and thus is without doubt free speech. If authority can't deal with being mocked, its rather an American tradition, then well we have bigger problems as a nation than we're talking about here.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    43. Re:KKK to TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      So you're in favor of vigilantism? The situation you describe is text book taking the law into your own hands. I'm sure the kid would "have rarely felt as justified" if he'd turned around and shot you either. Doesn't make it right, but hey he felt justified in doing it so it must have been ok?

      We all the right to be an asshole. It's called free speech.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    44. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tsa does not have any "officers". They are employees.

    45. Re:KKK to TSA by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Sure, whatever you say.

      You see, the entire point is that people do things, sometimes even irrational and illegal things because they felt justified in doing so. If you mistreat people, expect that eventually someone will mistreat you back.

      Am I in favor of vigilantism? Not particularly. As I said, that happened a long time ago- and I have gotten wiser in my age. But I can see when there might be times I would do something again and I can see how others would too. For instance, I would assault someone to stop then from harming others if I thought the others couldn't stop it themselves.

      Some of the best selling hollywood movies and TV shows are the ones where someone is mistreated in some way then fights back or someone fights back for them (think cop drama). Even comic books find that theme a hit with almost every hero. Sometimes they operate against the law, sometimes alongside it, and sometimes within it.

    46. Re:KKK to TSA by purelaborja · · Score: 2

      Yes, That is what she wanted. Read history, there were several sent out to try to get arrested. The whole idea was to get a test case.

    47. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since when is TSA congress?

      Since when is Delta congress?

      Since when is it someones right to fly on an airplane?

      though Delta should refund the guys ticket however.

    48. Re:KKK to TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Some of the best selling hollywood movies and TV shows are the ones where someone is mistreated in some way then fights back

      Because a fictional story exists and makes us feel good, it's ok in real life. Just wow.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    49. Re:KKK to TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      TSA was CREATED by Congress you moron. It IS the government. Their power is granted by...wait for it...CONGRESS...using...wait for it again....LAWS.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    50. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not condoning the way he was treated, but wearing that T-shirt to the airport was kind of like wearing a KKK shirt to a NAACP convention. Not exactly the brightest thing to do there Mr. PhD student.

    51. Re:KKK to TSA by Mephistophocles · · Score: 1

      Other than TSA being their usual charming selves (obvious racial profiling as another commenter noted), it all just sounds like another good reason not to fly Delta to me. I've been avoiding them for years; their planes are ancient and cramped, their staff sucks, they lose luggage like no one else in the business, and their prices are at least as high or higher than the competition.

      --
      Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
    52. Re:KKK to TSA by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      That's up there with thinking it's a great idea of wearing a gay pride shirt and prancing around making an ass of yourself at a country fried rock concert to get attention for your political slant, cause, or moral views and being surprised when you get your ass beat by all the rednecks around you.

      Still, it's illegal and immoral to beat him up, and legal for him to "prance around".

      He may end up in the hospital or morgue, but if the cops can identify you as an attacker (in a place full of cameras, both video and still) you're the one getting a record and jail time. Not the "prancer".

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    53. Re:KKK to TSA by DirtyLiar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The retard got what he deserved... That's up there with thinking it's a great idea of wearing a gay pride shirt and prancing around making an ass of yourself at a country fried rock concert...

      You're equating the TSA and Delta Airlines to a bunch of drunk rednecks.

      Someone is being insulted there. I'm just not sure who.

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    54. Re:KKK to TSA by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Yes, and women who wear miniskirts obviously shouldn't go into a bar because everybody knows they are full of rapists. And IF she is raped and gets pregnant she obviously wanted to get pregnant by her rapist. It's science, just ask Mr Akin on the Senate science and technology committee.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    55. Re:KKK to TSA by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct. The marketing habits of people en mass do not directly reflect the reality of what they want or desire at all. I'm sorry I attempted to make the correlation between the mass appeal of certain fictional stories to what people desired in real life to show that desire might be actually prone to manifest in real life.

      Perhaps you have a comprehension problem or something? I did not say anything made it "ok". I said it is something people desire so if you treat people badly, some of them will in turn treat you the same or worse in retaliation.

      In other words, without getting into the morality or legality of it, it is an observed human behavior that is increasingly being seen.

    56. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it be hypocritical? Just because I claim I have personal free speech rights doesn't mean I have to put up with you shouting obscenities in my house.

      But, this isn't a case of my shouting obscenities in your house.

    57. Re:KKK to TSA by Duggeek · · Score: 1

      I'm having a hard time figuring out which group looks the most asinine in this event; TSA, Delta Airlines® or the NTFA?

      From what we know in the article, I'm leaning towards NFTA getting the "ass hat" award. They weren't happy enough to trust the TSA screening or assume an unbiased stance on why Delta kicked him off the flight. (Keep in mind, if the Delta staff didn't have such a problem, he would have been flown to his destination.) No, that wasn't good enough for the high-falutin' NFTA; they had to keep pesterin' him.

      The audacious measures that people go through, when they're only answering to the voices in their heads. The risks and threats that these "officers" were addressing were completely and purely imaginary. None of them seemed to be satisfied with reality; they just had to go the panic route and persecute someone who was just trying to make a point.

      Is this going to spear-head the next attack on the 1st Amendment?

      In all, the TSA didn't prove to be the cause... or were they? Did they call Delta about this passenger before the flight boarded? Did they call NFTA to alert them of this "threat"? Consider this; I visit a shop and the owner is present with two attack dogs. If I crack a joke that the owner doesn't find funny, he may ask me to leave. If I leave, it should be clear that I'm cooperating with the owner's wishes. Now, if the dogs attack me as I'm leaving the store... do I blame the dogs?

      Think about it.

      --
      This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
    58. Re:KKK to TSA by Transaction7 · · Score: 1

      I'm unable to find and get into the TOA. whatever that is, referred to here, on the Net, and don't have a current dictionary of acronyms, so I may be missing something. This problem appears to be with a local transit authority police agency and Delta Air, not federal TSA, though the shirt, whatever it said which I don't know, did question. challenge, or attack TSA. I don't hold with racial, ethnic, religious, etc. discrimination, official or by public accommodations like airlines and restaurants, and they cannot justify that by claiming that customers might be biased against the person, either, but of course there is no law against excluding Ph.D. candidates because everybody knows, especially since "9/11" and the Aurora CO theater shooting, that some of those might be studying something dangerous like those. (For the record, I have only one earned doctorate myself, a J.D., the basic law degree). I've read about two successive directives by TSA's parent Homeland Security Department listing practicing Christians, believers in upholding and defending the Constitution, and the Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights thereto, veterans and special forces trainees, etc. as suspiciously likely to commit assassination, terrorism, etc. I have a congenital nystagmus condition, which, under Texas and many other jurisdictions; law, is probable cause for a warrantless arrest, breath or blood test, and search because the same symptoms, uncontrollable eye movements, etc., can be produced by alcohol or cocaine. I also have poor vision and eye-hand coordination, no depth perception, etc. as a result of this and other congenital neurological anomalies. I have been detained, and got pulled out and screened, not when boarding but after landing at my home city one night because I was visibly upset after a federal functionary had me fly to New Orleans and then they asked me why I came and said the problem could have been solved on the phone, so my involuntary eye movements wee more pronounced than usual--and that was before TSA. It took 24 years before the CIA finally quit lying to my U. S. Senator and me and admitted to me that they had put and kept me on a list of suspected Soviet spies and sympathizers, not only false but easily proven false, over a piece of academic research. I still can't get TSA to tell me if my nystagmus condition etc. and my mostly conservative political views, openly published, has me on a "no fly" or "suspicious" list. Nobody will tell me how to vote or board a plane shortly after my wallet with my state non-driver ID card (which it took me 14 years to get Texas to issue and then to integrate into the main drivers' license system) was lost or stolen, either. I know of no airline or TSA rule that might provide any even remotely legally arguable legal basis for denying a passenger carriage on a plane because of any political message, unless it was grossly obscene, indecent, etc.,not revealed here, in which case turn the shirt inside out for the flight. "Delta commits Unfair Labor Practices" would be protected, especially during a strike or lead-up job action. If the pilot had bumped these people to avoid delaying takeoff, pilots do have broad discretion, but it they had been allowed to board and had boarded before being kicked off, that doesn't make sense on the information given to date. Obviously something ticked the state Authority that runs the airport and its police.off. State and federal civil rights authorities should investigate what, if any,Constitutional and other legal rights may have been violated. Winning a civil suit might be very hard regardless of many possible facts.

    59. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'we have bigger problems as a nation than we're talking about here.'

      you sure do!

      this story is but one indication of that fact

    60. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, wearing a T-Shirt with a message is most definitely 'speech'. See the DeCSS fun where the code was put on a T-shirt than then was protected as 'speech'.

      Delta is not the government. However there were multiple government entities represented there and they weren't telling Delta to stand down, they were trying to take this guy in for *more* questioning.

      You treat authority with respect...when they deserve it. Simply wearing a T-Shirt is NOT treating them with disrespect.

      Going by what we know of the situation, he did nothing to warrant such intensive treatment by multiple (armed) security guards. He said he clearly stated it was mocking the state of security and thus is without doubt free speech. If authority can't deal with being mocked, its rather an American tradition, then well we have bigger problems as a nation than we're talking about here.

      And guess what the guvmit ain't the.government. either. Enter the police state.

      Corporate elitists make their own rules and have the benefit of intimidation with deadly force.

      In many cases one needs to go with the flow, and choose your battles wisely.

    61. Re:KKK to TSA by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is what is known as a metaphor.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    62. Re:KKK to TSA by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      In many cases one needs to go with the flow, and choose your battles wisely.

      Cool, when do I get to choose skin color? Some battles can't be avoided. Something about sacrificing liberty for security....

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    63. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right in that the TSA is an obscenity.

    64. Re:KKK to TSA by redlemming · · Score: 1

      In a free society, respect is something that must be earned. In a free society, we as individuals have a right to require that actions, to qualify for consideration in earning our respect, must be personally observed by us or by those in the close circle of people personally known to and trusted by any given individual. An uniform does not qualify a person to earn our respect. Nor does wealth, a degree, a job, a title, or a position.

      This is the big difference between a free society and a society that has inheritance by birth, one where nobles can require that others demonstrate respect towards them as a result of an accident of birth.

      While respect must be earned, a minimal level of courtesy towards other people is an obligation for all civilized human beings, at least until others demonstrate by their actions that they are worthy of our contempt, such as by violating fundamental rights. Once people demonstrate that they are worthy of our contempt, being free to express that contempt is itself a fundamental right.

      Matters are necessarily different in the armed forces.

      I suppose that being courteous could be considered showing a minimal level of respect towards others. Any respect that is granted beyond that minimum, however, must be earned.

    65. Re:KKK to TSA by robsku · · Score: 1

      Victim? What the fuck is wrong with you? Wearing an anti-TSA shirt through a TSA check point means you deserve to be fucked with. Its fucking rude, but not illegal, you're also rather fucking stupid to not expect that TSA to do THE EXACT SAME THING back to you.

      Rude!? No, that's not rude at all, this is: you are a pussy and a major ass.

      Why do you think you can disrespect someone and walk through there house without getting treated the same way?

      Thing is, TSA is not "someone" - and if someone criticizes your working place and you take it as them disrespecting you, well you're just dumb pussy and an ass.

      Wearing that shirt means he was intending to cause shit, perhaps he's just a douche bag, none the less, he made himself a target.

      "Intending to cause shit"? Seriously, what the fsck is wrong with you? Work for TSA and took this personally much? Sheesh...

      Should they have been harassed and thrown off the plane? No

      Did they deserve it? Certainly. Again, anyone with half a brain would realize that it was a bad idea to do what he did.

      You know, there are people who believe that other people will use their half brain too - they may be naive, but no, they don't "deserve it".

      Victims are people who get treated badly through no fault of their own. This dude brought it on himself, he's not a victim.

      That's bullshit, but I honestly believe you actually don't know that.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    66. Re:KKK to TSA by loneDreamer · · Score: 1

      Why do you compare public and private spaces as equal? Also, how is a t-shirt analog to shouting? Were other passengers disturbed in any way? How is a slightly funny text an obscenity? I sincerely see no logical relation whatsoever, nor do I see how can your comment be insightful.

    67. Re:KKK to TSA by Surt · · Score: 1

      What I read didn't indicate this took place in a public space. A t-shirt is an analog to shouting, much like wearing a sandwich-board. Finally, as I clarified in another post, I don't have to put up with you quietly advocating for Mitt Romney in my house either. The shouting/obscenity part was an unfortunate choice on my part.
       

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    68. Re:KKK to TSA by loneDreamer · · Score: 1

      No offence, but IMHO an airport is a pretty public space. A t-shirt could be equivalent, in a world full of text and adds, at most to a small whisper. I agree with the part about your house, but if we eliminate any form of dissension from public spaces, even minor and quite respectful (although sarcastic for sure) as in this case I fear the consequences would be dire.

    69. Re:KKK to TSA by Surt · · Score: 1

      There are portions of an airport that are more or less public. If he'd had a problem in the gift shop area, that would be one thing. But he was at the Delta gate before he had any issue. That's past the checkpoint, where your freedom to travel, for example, has already been severely restricted (no one allowed without a boarding pass). That's pretty clearly not public space anymore. And he still didn't get anything more serious than questions until he tried to board the plane, and that's private property plain and simple.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    70. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFLDR

    71. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You live in a plane?! Wow.

    72. Re:KKK to TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But "they want to destroy our freedom" was used to describe Al Qaeda.

      Apparently Delta sympathizes with Al Qaeda, when it comes to freedom of speech.

    73. Re:KKK to TSA by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 1

      There are times when security trumps free speech ("Fire!" in a theater, etc.) but those are few and rightly heavily restricted.

      The example you mention was first used by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in his opinion in the US Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States (1919). According to Wikipedia, the Court "... upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to express freedom of speech against the draft during World War I," which seems relevant to the present instance of suppression of free speech. The written opinion by Justice Holmes, in reference to handing out literature critical of wartime conscription, held that "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (The opinion also introduced the phrase "a clear and present danger".) "In A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn suggests that, since the defendants were prosecuted for handing out anti-war literature, a more apt analogy would be "someone shouting, not falsely, but truly, to people about to buy tickets and enter a theater, that there was a fire raging inside."

    74. Re:KKK to TSA by v1 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that there are exceptions to that rule, making it a crime to behave in a discriminatory manner against certain "protected groups". Kwik-mart can't tell you to get out because you are black. Corner cafe can't refuse you service because you're in a wheelchair. Grover Inc can't refuse to hire you because you're in the reserves. These aren't relevant exceptions in this discussion, but you're making a very overly-broad statement. Even private entities don't have a completely blank check.

      (although in the end, if they're smart, they can still do it... but they'll get themselves in a jam if they're stupid and provide the reason for what they're doing - they're a lot safer if they just plain refuse to give a reason. That guy went from safe to unsafe when he said "and he looks foreign")

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  8. Freedom to wear the shirt. by Sez+Zero · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Freedom to wear the shirt, not free from the consequences of wearing the shirt.

    1. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by fredrated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And why should there be consequences to wearing a f***ing t-shirt, I think that is the jist of the discussion.

    2. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by imnotanumber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Freedom to wear the shirt, not free from the consequences of wearing the shirt.

      By that logic, even the people from North Korea are free, even to mock their beloved ruler...

    3. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are free to criticize our honorable leader, and he is free to have you executed.

    4. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Very true, and it's something that's often forgotten by people who cry about their freedom of expression.

      However, those consequences should not have to include unwarranted abuse by the TSA. The TSA is there to keep passengers safe by keeping people with ill intent out, period. Their remit does not (or should not) include harassing people who rub them the wrong way. If they detained him purely because of the shirt, then they should be taken to task for that. And this seems to be the case... why else would the airline captain mention the shirt at all?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Tridus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Sure you can wear the shirt, but if you do then government thugs will do unkind things to you."

      Land of the "free" indeed.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    6. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Heed00 · · Score: 1

      America -- fuck yeah!

      --
      Thought thinks itself.
    7. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Wovel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Freedom from government consequences....

      However, it appears it was Delta (a Private company) that complained and ultimately decided they did not want him as a customer. By his own account the TSA let him through without any hassle. They were probably busy groping children and old people.

    8. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, but that doesn't mean the other person has the right to over-dramatize the event to the point it takes the other person's rights away.

      Secondly, he was wearing a parody shirt, not a shirt that said "OMG! I am going to bomb this plane!!!11!".

      We have a right to stop listening to someone like Rush Limbaugh when he says something that we don't like, but we don't have the right to make him stop saying it. Our rights end at his nose.

    9. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can anyone be naive enough to think that you can wear an anti-TSA T-shirt when you're going through a TSA checkpoint and not have a problem?

      Anyone doing this is playing a kind of legal game with a bunch of guys who, as far as they are concerned, are only doing their job. They deliberately make themselves stand out to the TSA agents, and dare them to do something about it. And then they complain because the TSA agents do something about it. It's the equivalent of going up to a 200lb body builder and saying, "hey, loser" and then complaining because you got punched. Deep down the guy wants to be stopped by the TSA, just so he can complain about it. Frankly, it's pathetic.

    10. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by evilRhino · · Score: 4, Informative

      False equivalency. The TSA (government) let him through without incident, it was a private business (Delta) that blocked him from boarding the plane.

    11. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 2

      If harassing someone because they're wearing a T shirt that mocks them seems to TSA agents as "only doing their job", they need some serious retraining. Or better yet, some serious firing. Out of a cannon by preference but from their job will do in a pinch

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    12. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Business kicks customer out because manager thinks he's a dick; !news.

    13. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How can anyone be naive enough to think that you can wear an anti-TSA T-shirt when you're going through a TSA checkpoint and not have a problem?

      I don't know, perhaps they read the First Amendment and thought it actually still applied.

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      We have the right in this country to criticize our government, its agencies and agents without fear from legal repercussions from them. So, yes, when government agents harass him simply because he criticized them it is a big deal.

    14. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't think of any message or logo on a t-shirt that would be a genuine threat to the safety of a modern passenger aircraft or its passengers. The most severe consequences I can think of is someone saying "That's rude and offensive". BFD. Since when does being rude and offensive make someone a terrorist threat?

    15. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are free to wear this short skirt. You are not free from the consequences of wearing the skirt. So, it wasn't rape, you were ASKING for it!

      You are free to say what you think about (the government/politician X). You are not free from the consequences of saying this, including (but not limited to) being arrested for no reason, getting beat up by law enforcement, or simply getting shot.

      This doesn't always work the way you want.

    16. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1, Informative

      And while private companies are excused from violating constitutional rights (free speech in this case) if they have "special" status like common carrier (which airlines do have) then perhaps their special status should be yanked...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    17. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Really? You're ok with someone getting physically assaulted because they said something to someone? And something that isn't really that offensive? What the fuck happened to "land of the free"? What the fuck happened to your freedoms stop at my nose?

      I know where this is going, and it is truly fucking scary: It's ok for someone to get physically abused as long as I don't like them.

      Wow. The US is fucked.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    18. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      How can someone be so fucking stupid as to not know that the TSA let him through? Twice!

      Oh right, he can be an anonymous cowshit on slashdot.

    19. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by imnotanumber · · Score: 1

      False equivalency. The TSA (government) let him through without incident, it was a private business (Delta) that blocked him from boarding the plane.

      And who made the rule that allowed them to do that? If some "law" is enforced by a private organization that does not mean the State has nothing to do with that.

    20. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by shentino · · Score: 1

      An airline is a private entity and unlike with the TSA (a government agency) there is no first amendment protection.

      You are on private property and the airline reserves the right to refuse service for any or indeed no reason.

      The TSA did right by not detaining him for what is clearly a free speech issue.

      However, the airline was not legally in the wrong to boot him, either.

      Now, if they kicked him off the flight and kept his ticket money, THAT would be wrong. But simply exercising your property rights as a private business doesn't cut the mustard as far as violating your civil rights goes.

    21. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by shentino · · Score: 2

      If the TSA made a stink about it, that's government abuse and that's one thing.

      The airline however is a private business.

    22. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, some dipshit has to mention the First Amendment - quote it even - but not understand what it says.

      It says "congress shall make no law ..." it does not say "all government agents must be prepared to accept at face value citizens who are clearly going out of their way to piss them off by wearing a T-shirt that is derogatory towards them".

      If you think the Founding Fathers intended to protect people from being hassled by uniforms when they deliberately provoke them then you badly misunderstood your history class.

      Fact is, the TSA have the right to inconvenience anyone for any reason, so if you dare them to do it, they will. And at the end of the day you can't prove they did it because of his T-shirt, now, can you? In fact, aren't we just assuming that? And why? Have you asked yourself why we're assuming that? Because it's human fucking nature, that's why. The First Amendment won't protect you from that. As OP said, free to wear the T-shirt, not free of the consequences of wearing the T-shirt.

      Get over it, there are way more important infractions of our civil liberties than the TSA hassling people who are asking to be hassled.

    23. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by shentino · · Score: 2

      The way we bend over and take it, it is certainly not the home of the brave, either.

    24. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Desler · · Score: 1

      Maybe actually read the whole summary before spouting off nonsense?

      The pilot of the aircraft, however, had had enough of the whole ordeal and asked the Delta supervisor to relay the message that, due to the discomfort the shirt had caused, neither Arijit nor his wife would be allowed to board the aircraft.

      Seriously, it is only a 4 sentence summary. He was kicked off by the pilot of the plane which is completely within Delta's prerogative since you have no right to fly on their planes. First Amendment has pretty much no bearing on the case.

    25. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False equivalency. The TSA (government) let him through without incident, it was a private business (Delta) that blocked him from boarding the plane.

      Correct. Meaning his expulsion from the plane was righteous and divine in nature, being the will of TEH FREE MARKETS!1!!!1! Now go forth, and remember to pray at the Wal-Mart of your choice.

    26. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Freedom to wear the shirt, not free from the consequences of wearing the shirt.

      Very true, and it's something that's often forgotten by people who cry about their freedom of expression.

      But it's not true. Freedom *is* to be free from the consequences--in this context, specifically the government-imposed ones.

      Otherwise, we would say everyone has the freedom to wear (or do) whatever they want, but you know, you might just get disappeared by government agents for it as a consequence. I wouldn't call that freedom at all.

      What I think you meant, however, is that people often forget that having freedom from government-imposed consequences does not magically make them free from all consequences.

    27. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by evilRhino · · Score: 0

      Although personally I don't see how a T-shirt could be seen as a threat, it could be alarming to other people. One could argue that it's like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

    28. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Desler · · Score: 1

      Common carrier status for airlines, buses, trains, etc. has never meant that they have to let everyone on board and can't kick people off and refuse them carriage. In fact, many of the states have regulations on common carriers that REQUIRE them to do so in the interests of the safe carriage of the passengers.

    29. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Desler · · Score: 1

      Since when did pilots of private airliners become government agents?

    30. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by mbone · · Score: 2

      How can anyone be naive enough to think that you can wear an anti-TSA T-shirt when you're going through a TSA checkpoint and not have a problem?

      Once again, read the article. He had no problem from the TSA. He went through the checkpoint just fine. He had a problem with Delta. He was cleared again by the TSA. Delta then wouldn't let him on the plane.

      I hate to feel like an apologist for the TSA, but I don't see that they did anything out of line here.

    31. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Two things: You have no constitutional right to free speech on private property; and,the constitution provides limits to governmental powers (specifically the federal government) rather than listing an individuals rights. So Starbucks can kick you out for any reason, and the constitution works differently than you seem to think.

    32. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by drewco · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How about if I go to the policeman's ball with a t-shit that says "Cop Killer" on the front, and "Die Piggy Die" on the back. Or how about if I go to any place with any gathering of professionals and wear a t-shit that is made to be insulting to them. Should I expect to be received with open arms? This guy wanted to be a pain in the ass, and it turns out that all sorts of pain in the ass behaviour (not just wearing offensive t-shirts and making a fuss about it) will get you kicked off the plane. Remember kids, don't poke the bear.

    33. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by mbone · · Score: 2

      And while private companies are excused from violating constitutional rights (free speech in this case) if they have "special" status like common carrier (which airlines do have) then perhaps their special status should be yanked...

      Good luck with that.

    34. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by mbone · · Score: 2

      In my experience, if you are kicked off a flight "for cause," they will not refund your money. And if (as I suspect) his wife could have flown, but chose not to board before him, they won't refund her money either.

      I was once part of a party where one member was kicked off by the Chief Stewardess, not the pilot. I saw the whole thing, strongly felt it wasn't justified, and said, if he is not flying, I am not flying either. That really surprised the crew, but they didn't back down, so in the end 4 of us left the plane. They then called us over to the counter for some bullshit reason as a ruse to get the cops there, so we could be escorted out of the airport. I had to rent a van to get us all to DC.

      I guess what I learned is, if you get kicked off an airplane, just walk away. And, I must admit, I had a sense of sublime joy when that particular airline went out of business.

    35. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, those consequences should not have to include unwarranted abuse by the TSA. The TSA is there to keep passengers safe by keeping people with ill intent out, period. Their remit does not (or should not) include harassing people who rub them the wrong way. If they detained him purely because of the shirt, then they should be taken to task for that. And this seems to be the case... why else would the airline captain mention the shirt at all?

      the TSA didn't harass him- the airline did

      RTFA

    36. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      You can say anything you want to, but you have to be prepared to live with the consequences of that speech. The first amendment has been tested and it has been found that limits can be applied. Fire in a crowded theater and all that. You can test those limits at an airport if you want to, but you'd best be prepared to accept the subsequent government-mandated prostate exam and you'd best be prepared to lose your court case too.

      Beyond that though, a lot of people get butthurt when expressing their opinions makes them unpopular. "But I have freedom of speech!" they say. Well so do I, and if you're a racist, homophobe, asshole or otherwise just unpleasant to be around, I'm going to exercise MY freedom of speech by not associating with you. Even if you do make a damn good chicken sandwich.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    37. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Just also note that the government did not prevent him from boarding. Even though the TSA was the target of his rant, they let him through. It was a civilian that made the final call

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      No law kicked him off the plane. The first Amendment mentions nothing of pinheaded pilots.

    38. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start. I pity you and your children if that is your actual views. I'll leave it to someone with more time on their hands to tell you just how wrong that is, or may I suggest doing some reading at your public library.

    39. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Freedom is freedom to both wear and be free from government originated consequences as well as some measure of protection from the government for consequences origination from other third parties.
      For the most part you are free to be a dick and the government cannot stop or punish you and will even protect you from some of the consequences you receive from other citizens. Which is markedly different with murder. You are not free to murder because the government will inflect consequences on you and not protect you for the most part from other people, at the time of the murder at least (you are allowed to defend yourself and others).

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    40. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      Delta is a common carrier, that means they can not discriminate with respect to their clients. Pilots can remove passengers if they are a security concern, but that may be considered questionable for this fact pattern.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    41. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      However, those consequences should not have to include unwarranted abuse by the TSA. The TSA is there to keep passengers safe by keeping people with ill intent out, period. Their remit does not (or should not) include harassing people who rub them the wrong way. If they detained him purely because of the shirt, then they should be taken to task for that. And this seems to be the case... why else would the airline captain mention the shirt at all?

      the TSA didn't harass him- the airline did RTFA

      That could be a new slogan: "The TSA doesn't harass people, corporations with TSA harass people."

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    42. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What's become apparent from the course of American politics is that limiting government power is not enough. Government power has been augmented by corporate power for which there are no checks and no representation by the people. The protections against government power written into the Constitution are insufficient when government and corporate power have merged.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    43. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by pclminion · · Score: 2

      Ah, the war cry of censorship-lovers. Did you know that you are also free to murder in this country? You just aren't free from the consequences! Amazing.

    44. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      Fire in a crowded theater and all that

      A phrase used to justify upholding the conviction of someone who dared to hand out anti-draft flyers.

      You can test those limits at an airport if you want to, but you'd best be prepared to accept the subsequent government-mandated prostate exam and you'd best be prepared to lose your court case too.

      There are other consequences of daring to stand up to the TSA, beyond the gropings. When I told the TSA that there was no way I would step into a full body scanner, they made me wait 10 minutes before giving me a pat down, and when they opened the metal detector they said I still had to wait. The entire time, my luggage was sitting unattended on the other side of the checkpoint, including my laptop -- anyone could have stolen or damaged my things. When I asked why I couldn't go through the metal detector like all the other people, I was told that I had opted out of the scanner and therefore had to be patted down. When I asked if I was being punished for exercising my rights, a TSA employee suddenly found the time to do the pat down.

      We are beyond just "accepting the consequences" of exercising our rights at this point. We are talking about a lawless organization (how else do you describe people who ignore court orders?) that reeks of corruption and which actively and deliberately attacks Americans and American rights.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    45. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by bbbaldie · · Score: 1

      My words exactly. Probably pissed over getting in trouble yelling "Fire!" in theaters as a kid...

    46. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by admdrew · · Score: 1

      The guy wasn't accused of breaking any laws or rules, he was just removed from the plane at the prerogative of those responsible for the plane (the pilot/Delta). Flying isn't a right.

    47. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Bigby · · Score: 2

      The TSA is part of the executive branch, whose power is derived from the President of the United States. The President of the United States executes the laws of the nation, which are created by the Constitution of the United States and the Congress. So what law allows the TSA to abridge the freedom of speech?

    48. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The law is: "It's my plane, get the fuck off it." The plane is private property, and just because the government regulates it doesn't mean it's not theirs to do with as they please.

    49. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Freedom to wear the shirt, not free from the consequences of wearing the shirt

      What should the consequences be? Satire is protected speech in the US the last I checked.

      People are uncomfortable and scared of all kinds of things does irrational fear give them the right to impune the rights of others? One big happy vigilante mob rule family?

      If I don't like chinese people I'll just hang a big ole sign outside my chinese noodle shop saying no chinese allowed because they "scare" me.

    50. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the TSA doesn't provide security.

      The equivalent to his shirt would be yelling "Fire!" in a theater when there really is a fire in the theater.

    51. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by sjames · · Score: 1

      The same way someone can be 'naive' enough to get on the bus with dark skin and not expect to sit at the back.

    52. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by sjames · · Score: 1

      All corporations have a special status. If they will not honor the Constitution, their charter should be yanked.

    53. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, some dipshit has to mention the First Amendment - quote it even - but not understand what it says.....

      And here we have another one. The guy bought a ticket. Normally that would be a simple contract; He pays Delta; Delta moves him from place a) to place b) according to their published schedule. Delta fails to deliver on the contract; Delta pays for the consequences. The only reason that they are allowed to even question that contract is because of laws made by congress which give the Pilot power over the passengers. If the law allows the pilot to impinge on first amendment rights for no good reason then it is unconstitutional.

      ...TSA hassling people ....

      So many funny people who can't read a two line summary let alone RTFA. It's no wonder you don't understand your own constituation. It wasn't the TSA.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    54. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are a number of reasons that Starbucks may NOT kick you out for, such as your gender, race, or perceived orientation.

    55. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by toriver · · Score: 1

      They did not. Delta Airlines, a private company, did. Because on the plane, the captain is the dictator.

    56. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by toriver · · Score: 1

      The IATA (the International Air Traffic Agency). Who say that on the plane the captain is king. And that is one of the international bodies the U.S. bows to, otherwise we would still be getting to and from your country by boat...

    57. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by toriver · · Score: 1

      Very few things are rights. For instance, the Government could mandate that all cars should have breathalyzer locks to cut down on drunk driving, and speed blockers to prevent speeding. Because driving a car freely is not a right either.

    58. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by admdrew · · Score: 1

      You're correct about very few things being rights, but I guess I don't understand the point of your example.

      I was just saying that 1) the guy kicked off the plane wasn't accused of breaking any rules or laws, and 2) you can be kicked off a plane even if you're not breaking rules because there is no inherent right to be on said plane.

    59. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      By that criteria, all nations under any rule has complete freedom of speech. Sorry to go Godwin on you, but even in Nazi Germany, the Jews were "free to wear Hitler Sucks" t-shirts. They just had to accept that they were not free from the consequences of getting gassed for it.

    60. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      A phrase used to justify upholding the conviction of someone who dared to hand out anti-draft flyers.

      Also legal precedent. Like it or don't like it, a court will accept that there are limits to absolute freedom of speech, and will happily uphold whatever conviction arises from your joking about having a bomb at the airport or threatening the president. Or bumping into him accidentally, if you piss his guys off before or after that.

      There are other consequences of daring to stand up to the TSA, beyond the gropings. When I told the TSA that there was no way I would step into a full body scanner, they made me wait 10 minutes before giving me a pat down, and when they opened the metal detector they said I still had to wait. The entire time, my luggage was sitting unattended on the other side of the checkpoint, including my laptop -- anyone could have stolen or damaged my things. When I asked why I couldn't go through the metal detector like all the other people, I was told that I had opted out of the scanner and therefore had to be patted down. When I asked if I was being punished for exercising my rights, a TSA employee suddenly found the time to do the pat down.

      Did you ask them to return your things to you? Security personnel should be fine with items passing from the secure side of the security zone to the unsecure side of the security zone. It's the other way that's a problem. In any event, I'm sure those guys have to deal with about 10 million people a day, and some tiny percentage of that has some political axe to grind, and those gum up the works. I'm sure if I were in a position like that, the folks who are moving right along would have a higher priority for my attention. Goodness knows I'd... eventually... get around to the... dissidents... And... oh look, we're back to consequences of our speech again aren't we?

      We are beyond just "accepting the consequences" of exercising our rights at this point. We are talking about a lawless organization (how else do you describe people who ignore court orders?) that reeks of corruption and which actively and deliberately attacks Americans and American rights.

      Which is why, as we live in a democracy, we've already made the department's existence a voting issue. Oh wait, we haven't. Scuttlebutt around town is the TSA's approval rating could easily be over 50%. That's right, our countrymen are spineless bleating sheep and they actually like the security theater. I doubt there's much new under the sun as far as that goes, too. It's not like human nature suddenly changed at any point. Humans are largely irrational, frightened creatures that will start at their own shadow. Should you ever realize that being afraid of the dark is pointless because you're the most frightening thing in it, well, you'd best keep that little tidbit to yourself. Or do you think the herd will just accept the wolf that has woken in their midst?

      Sure, you can waste a lot of energy getting bent out of shape about things you can't do anything about, but your righteous indignation will get you nowhere. Don't think I haven't been down that road. May as well just focus on the things you can do something about, and leave humanity to take care of itself.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    61. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Starbucks can kick you out for any reason, and the constitution works differently than you seem to think.

      Are you suggesting that they can post up a sign saying "no black people allowed" and not be held accountable. Fortunately, this is not the case, and their are limits to things people can do. These limits are even stricter when the area is a public space (even though it may be on 'private property').

    62. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can anyone be naive enough to think that you can wear an anti-TSA T-shirt when you're going through a TSA checkpoint and not have a problem?

      Perhaps he had read the article and realised that the TSA allowed the guy through, and it was the airline pilot that threw a tantrum?

      So, I guess the real question is "How can someone be stupid enough to criticise when they don't bother to read the story?

    63. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      I see you didn't read the article.

    64. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      He was kicked off by the pilot of the plane which is completely within Delta's prerogative since you have no right to fly on their planes.

      You're probably right, which is a sad state of affairs, but they had already taken his money with the agreement to provide the service he paid for. He had not broken any laws or even the terms of the agreement. It's not that I think it was smart what he did. When I went to East Germany in 1987 I made sure I didn't wear an anti-communism t-shirt at the border. The sad thing is, we are now doing and allowing the things we used to decry with the former Soviet Block.

    65. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      I agree. They did what they were paid to do and when they found no threat they let him on the plane. In my opionion, the issue is with Delta and specifically the pilot.

    66. Re:Freedom to wear the shirt. by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      In my experience, if you are kicked off a flight "for cause," they will not refund your money. And if (as I suspect) his wife could have flown, but chose not to board before him, they won't refund her money either.

      This may be true, but all they need to do is find a sympathetic jury and I doubt that would be difficult here.

  9. Quite a lot by ah.clem · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >> Just how much humiliation is the general American public willing to tolerate in the name of 'security'?"

    Quite a lot apparently, quite a lot.

    --
    "Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
    1. Re:Quite a lot by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not toleration. It's just that it doesn't have anything to do with the Kardashians.

    2. Re:Quite a lot by shentino · · Score: 1

      How much of it is apathy, and how much of it is grudging acceptance of the fact that they've got us by the balls as gatekeepers between us and the flights we need?

    3. Re:Quite a lot by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Especially if the humiliation is heaped on others who are too dark, too unchristian, too unlike everybody else. Somehow, I suspect if lily-white "Betty" with grandma glasses from Ohio would have been wearing that t-shirt, a) it us much less likely that it would have happened at all, and b) this would be making much more the news rounds.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:Quite a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of it is apathy, and the knowledge that it won't happen to most of us.

    5. Re:Quite a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "they've got us by the balls as gatekeepers between us and the flights we need?"

      I don't think so. If NOBODY flew, and said it was because of TSA, it would be gone tomorrow.

  10. TSA info chart by worf_mo · · Score: 4, Informative

    The TSA info chart is quite interesting.

  11. Overt Camoflague by d3jake · · Score: 2

    Because someone who is that obvious about wearing an anti-TSA shirt will *totally* be the one who's going to not draw suspicion so they can bomb a plane....riiiight...

  12. The real story link by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Arijit's actual blog Arijit Vs. Delta

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:The real story link by bbbaldie · · Score: 1

      Methinks he uses the word "racist" too much.

  13. Love the Shirt! by dopaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Where can I buy that shirt?

    1. Re:Love the Shirt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bit outdated. Needs a version with the Delta Airlines logo instead.

    2. Re:Love the Shirt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://shirt.woot.com/offers/threat-level-doctorow

    3. Re:Love the Shirt! by mbourgon · · Score: 1

      You'll have to make one - this was a Woot shirt a couple years ago, and I haven't seen it resurface. Designed by Cory Doctorow!

      However, if you search for it, I believe there's a high-res version of the image, you could probably get that made into a shirt online.

      --
      "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
    4. Re:Love the Shirt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://shirt.woot.com/offers/threat-level-doctorow

      Currently sold out, however.

    5. Re:Love the Shirt! by X86Daddy · · Score: 1

      It was one of the first shirts sold on shirt.woot and the design was by Cory Doctorow. They usually sell popular designs for a while, unlike their usual deal-a-day model, but I think that one is long gone. Maybe with it in the news, they'll bring it back...

    6. Re:Love the Shirt! by X86Daddy · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Love the Shirt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where can I buy that shirt?

      Unfortunately, it's a reckoned Woot shirt. There are two on teetrade.org (search for Threat Level: Doctorow).

    8. Re:Love the Shirt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://shirt.woot.com/plus/threat-level-doctorow-1

  14. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    America is the only country that gropes It's passengers. Israel profiles, & has no hijackings.

  15. Freedom of thought? Freedom of speec? Not so much! by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

    You guys are losing the plot.

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  16. america is not a first rate country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sure we have a few super rich billionaire tycoons but so does Russia and it doesn't stop Russia from being a shit hole either.

  17. Failed the Attitude Test by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    It's always been there, it's just more naked now.

    I do have to wonder what he expected to happen. Wasn't this the exactly the outcome that the shirt itself predicted?

    Point well made, he could have laughed it off and covered or removed the shirt, so that it could be taken away for controlled detonated by the Freedom Disposal Squad.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Failed the Attitude Test by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Read the stories. He did remove the shirt. And Delta still kicked him from the flight.

    2. Re:Failed the Attitude Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did offer to remove the shirt. But it wasn't enough for Delta, even though they originally told him it would be.
      http://arijitvsdelta.blogspot.com/

  18. he made a mistake by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
    What he should have done is asked everybody involved for their names, written them down, and posted them on his blog. Naming and shaming publically the dipshits is the only way to scare them and making them behave.

    So, task for the Anonymous Legion: Who's the pilot of the airplane? What's his address? Who's the manager on duty? What's his address? Who are the TSA agents who were guarding the gate at that particular time? What's their address? Send them all a complimentary T-shirt.

    1. Re:he made a mistake by shentino · · Score: 1

      Great way to end up on the no fly list.

      Texas state government btw tried to prevent this by making it illegal to grope.

      The feds backed them off by threatening to add Texas to a federal no fly zone.

    2. Re:he made a mistake by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Right, he's not been allowed flying now, so not being able to fly is a problem how? BTW I assume he's actually interested in doing some protesting, if he's going to be wearing that kind of T-shirt in an airport. Otherwise he's just a dumbass.

  19. Simple...Don't Fly by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see no reason to submit to their bullshit. I have not flown in nearly 7 years, and don't see it happening any time soon.

    If enough people simply refuse to fly, the airlines will go belly up, or they will lobby to remove the TSA. Though, the private thugs they replace them with probably won't be any better.

    1. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by shentino · · Score: 1

      For starters, if they grope you, you could probably sue them without the inconvenient bit of sovereign immunity getting in the way.

    2. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by cusco · · Score: 2

      Nah, the airlines will just ask for yet another government bailout, and get it. How many times has Continental been rescued from bankruptcy by the Feds? Three, I think, plus they (and IIRC the rest of the industry) were liberated from the burden of actually honoring the pension plans in the legally binding contract that they signed with their employees.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    3. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by Bigby · · Score: 1

      No, they'll lobby to outlaw driving more than 200 miles in one day. It will be implemented by regulating the size of gas tanks and force all gas purchases to be electronic (so there is only one gas purchase per day).

      It will be called the "US Is The Best Country In The World Energy Conservation Act".

    4. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they'll lobby to outlaw driving more than 200 miles in one day. It will be implemented by regulating the size of gas tanks and force all gas purchases to be electronic (so there is only one gas purchase per day).

      LOL, the gas and oil lobby would never allow that.

    5. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of us get to use a transporter, Captain....

    6. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have not flown in nearly 7 years, and don't see it happening any time soon.

      Lucky you. I'd love to join you - there's nothing I like more, you see, than having my shampoo confiscated - but I'm kind of confused as to how I can move between the east and west coasts without a week of non-air travel involved.

      The sad fact is, 'enough' people can't simply refuse to fly, because there is no other viable mode of transportation in this country. At best (and worst), the most that will happen is the airlines will cry to Congress and taxpayers will bail them out, whether they like it or not.

    7. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by RobinH · · Score: 1

      How much do you think it costs in jet fuel per passenger vs. gasoline per passenger to take you the same distance?

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    8. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by AnonyMouseCowWard · · Score: 1

      So.. every time there's a TSA story on Slashdot, I see this kind of comment. "Don't like it? Don't fly!"

      Can we all agree that flying is not necessarily by choice? In economic terms, it's pretty inelastic. There are very few alternatives to flying, and in some cases, there are just no other options. I used to fly weekly, as a consultant, because driving/train would take you 1-2 days and a plane can do it in mere hours. Unless you never want to see your family on the weekends? And when I want to see the family that doesn't live close to me, I need to fly, because there's something in the way we call an "ocean", and I do not have 1 week to drive across the country and 3 weeks to take a boat (double that if I want to come back).

      If you want to boycott a service, that service needs to be boycott-able, and flying _is not_ for most people. People like me cannot avoid it. The only thing we can do is raise a fuss, and say "okay this blows", by wearing t-shirts (because clearly, politicians don't listen that much, and I don't have a million to donate to a candidate).

    9. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I will just add yet another RTFA comment... but if you do read the article, it is clear it was Delta that caused this mess, not the TSA. Even the idiot police office mentioned was from the transit authority, not the TSA. Doesn't mean the TSA isn't a piece of cr@p, but that is not a conclusion to make based on this article. That should be: 'Dont fly Delta, they are pricks'.

    10. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By avoiding doing something you would normally do, you are also submitting to the situation just as much as those people who do fly.

    11. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's all well and good when you and your extended family are all in US. Given the guy's name, chances are good that he has relatives oversees. And you don't have any viable options there other than flying (ships are too slow, you've got to have a lot of time to waste, more time than most people with jobs have).

    12. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much do you think it costs in jet fuel per passenger vs. gasoline per passenger to take you the same distance?

      Exactly! It's much more efficient to fly than to drive (well, long distances anyway).

      Efficiency cuts into the gas and oil company profits!

      And many, many more people drive than fly to begin with. So limiting driving range, fuel tank size and gas purchases to one per day would seriously cut into profits.

    13. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by loshwomp · · Score: 1

      If enough people simply refuse to fly, the airlines will go belly up, or they will lobby to remove the TSA.

      ...and then...

      I have not flown in nearly 7 years, and don't see it happening any time soon.

      So how's that working out so far?

    14. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by debrain · · Score: 1

      If enough people simply refuse to fly, the airlines will go belly up, or they will lobby to remove the TSA. Though, the private thugs they replace them with probably won't be any better.

      Just some food for thought:

      Nationalization of airlines is just another step towards totalitarianism. Control the travel, control the people. The airlines are cheap when they're bankrupt -- watch for a consolidation in the airline industry, then the government to take stake in what's left over.

      In a competition between lobbyists of the military industrial complex and those of the airline industry, who do you think would come out on top?

      So refusing to fly will ironically starve the airline industry of the funds necessary to combat the entrenched security apparatus. You would be better with a rich airline industry, whose incentive is to make flying easy, fast, safe and cheap.

      The thing to do may be to fly, and fly often. A rich airline industry will want to seek to increase its profits, and will see reducing security costs as a way to do that. A poor airline industry will seek bailouts, shelter and favour from the government (such as the granting of rights to overseas routes); these shall come with strings attached.

      As a historical anecdote, there is a pattern of economic sanctions imposed by the UN entrenching incumbent demagogues, such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It starves the population and deprives them of the wealth necessary to form and fund an opposition. Perhaps the airline industry in this context is somewhat analogous.

      Not to make conclusions - the relationship between airlines and the TSA is at best complex. However, I am confident that stymying the great and growing divide between fundamental rights and the TSA is not as simple as ceasing to fly, and it may actually be a counter-productive.

    15. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, because traveling to Europe or Australia on boat is so much more convenient.

      There's trade-off to everything.

    16. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Some of us like to get off of this continent from time to time. Flights aren't all a matter of "oh no, five hours is much too long a drive to go see grandma, let's fly!". Additionally, I have to travel for work. Even leaving aside overseas trips, flying is the only way to maintain my schedule (and some of our clients *are* overseas).

      Besides, you're ignoring the TSA getting their filthy hands onto other transit facilities. It's not just airports anymore.

      The only way to avoid the TSA would be to leave the US (without flying) and never return. Don't think I haven't considered it, but right now, that's not a practical option.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    17. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If enough people simply refuse to fly ...

      Businessmen will always fly. People in a hurry will always fly. The airlines will always have customers who don't want to fight the oppressive system.

      If states like Texas, get neighbouring states to adopt and enforce their rule against nationalized security theatre, the airlines will have to support them.

    18. Re:Simple...Don't Fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lived for several years on the opposite side of the country from my family while attending law school. My options were (a) fly and be there in about 6 hours, or (b) drive and be there in about 6 days at significantly higher cost (and higher risk of injury and higher levels of stress since I detest long-distance driving). Since my Christmas vacation did not start 6 days before Christmas, it wasn't exactly an option.

      I guess I could have just given up on seeing my family in person and hugging them after a year of absence, but I don't think I want to give the TSA that much power over my life. YMMV.

  20. t-shirt trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    The guy was being a real life troll. I can only predict he would be pushing everyone's buttons on the airplane just so he could scream bias/ racism/ prejudice.

    Kind of reminds me of the annoying kid who wouldn't shut up in the classroom in grade school because he's, "in america and have the first amendment rights to free speech." You also have the freedom to be a dumbass. Don't be surprised if you get beat up in the playground.

    1. Re:t-shirt trolling by shentino · · Score: 2

      Does being a dumbass magically give bullies the right to beat him up, or merely deny him the privilege of bitching about it?

    2. Re:t-shirt trolling by drewco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody said it gave them the right, and this guy's right to bitch about it hasn't been denied. The point is that there are consequences, right or wrong, to going out of your way to be a jackass.

    3. Re:t-shirt trolling by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      It gives them no "rights" at all. They don't need rights, they just need fists.

      So-called rights are an illusion. You remove a government and law enforcement and see what rights you actually have which you can't defend with your own fists and whatever weapons you can lay hands on.

      Done correctly, the violence is controlled by these structures and you are able to be more at liberty to say unpopular things, but the reality of things never quite goes away. Kids are allowed to beat on one another on the playground so they learn, someday, that there are consequences to thinking that you can just open your mouth and say whatever you want at any time. As an adult, the consequences could be significantly more severe.

      There is value to people beyond who is weak and who is strong, which is why civilization protects the weak. However, that is not the natural state of things, and never has been.

    4. Re:t-shirt trolling by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I can only predict he would be pushing everyone's buttons on the airplane

      Um, why would a random passenger on an airplane have his buttons pushed by the t-shirt in question?

    5. Re:t-shirt trolling by shentino · · Score: 1

      In the adult world, business just replaces fists with lawsuits, so it's not really all that different at all.

    6. Re:t-shirt trolling by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Where did he go out of his way to be a jackass? He expressed his opinion with using offensive words or directing it at anyone in particular. When asked he changed his shirt so that short-sighted passengers would feel comfortable. Please explain.

    7. Re:t-shirt trolling by robsku · · Score: 1

      Wearing a t-shirt with text is a really big thingy on that side of the lake, isn't it?

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    8. Re:t-shirt trolling by drewco · · Score: 1

      When he chose to wear a t-shirt that to the airport that openly mocks the TSA (we call this 'poking the bear'). The guy is obviously aware of how annoying and overzealous airport security can be, so he picked this t-shirt out for the sole purpose of attracting that kind of attention, which is exactly like something a jackass would do. To compound the jackassery he even explains his message in an insulting and pointed way (even though offensive words were not used) by stating, "...it was ‘mocking the security theater charade...’” When you tell the gate manager, or a TSA agent that security is a 'charade' or 'theater' (or any professional about their job for that matter) you are aiming to insult or offend them. Meanwhile, it should be plain as day by now that he wasn't removed from the flight for his shirt, he was removed because he caused a scene, which either genuinely made people uncomfortable, or just plain annoyed the staff to the point where they don't want to deal with it. This kind of stuff happens with any passenger on any airline that makes any scene for any reason, even the ones that are smart enough to not purposefully attract and provoke security.

  21. Bombs and terrorists by jonnythan · · Score: 1

    What kind of idiot wears a shirt that says "bombs" and "terrorists" and "gonna kill us all" onto a plane?

    1. Re:Bombs and terrorists by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1, Troll

      What kind of idiot doesn't understand parody?

      Ooops, sorry. I live in the USA, where at least 51% of population are idiots and don't understand parody. My bad.

    2. Re:Bombs and terrorists by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      It's parody, but it's in fairly poor taste when you're in a flying aluminum can with hundreds of people, many of whom are extremely apprehensive about flying at all, let alone with a guy wearing a shirt talking about bombs and terrorists.

      Fact is that wearing a shirt talking about bombs and terrorists in an airport while getting onto a plane is going to make a significant number of people very uncomfortable. Many of these people are already quite uncomfortable already without having to deal with jokes about bombs.

      The guy wasn't prevented from flying because he made fun of the TSA. He was prevented from flying because he was wearing a shirt joking about bombs and terrorists.

    3. Re:Bombs and terrorists by cffrost · · Score: 1

      What kind of idiot wears a shirt that says "bombs" and "terrorists" and "gonna kill us all" onto a plane?

      The kind of "idiot" who attended an elementary school's social studies class and was led to believe we have the freedom to express ourselves in this country.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    4. Re:Bombs and terrorists by jonnythan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do have the freedom to express yourself.

      Delta pilots also have the freedom to kick you off their planes if you do so in a disruptive way.

    5. Re:Bombs and terrorists by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      ...and the last time a JOKE brought down a plane was????

      thought so.

      we, as kids, used to have a pretty wise saying: "sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me"

      I guess only kids are this smart, huh?

      adults: not so much.

      yeah, lets hassle people who protest being abused and who want to cause change in the system. HOW DARE THEY!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Bombs and terrorists by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      What kind of idiot wears a shirt that says "bombs" and "terrorists" and "gonna kill us all" onto a plane?

      Isn't that pretty much what the existence of the TSA says?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    7. Re:Bombs and terrorists by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      It's parody, but it's in fairly poor taste when you're in a flying aluminum can with hundreds of people, many of whom are extremely apprehensive about flying at all, let alone with a guy wearing a shirt talking about bombs and terrorists.

      Fact is that wearing a shirt talking about bombs and terrorists in an airport while getting onto a plane is going to make a significant number of people very uncomfortable. Many of these people are already quite uncomfortable already without having to deal with jokes about bombs.

      The guy wasn't prevented from flying because he made fun of the TSA. He was prevented from flying because he was wearing a shirt joking about bombs and terrorists.

      No, the shirt is joking about stupid security, a difference that escapes many people in general and on Slashdot.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    8. Re:Bombs and terrorists by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes. The TSA didn't bar him, the pilot did, probably because the idiot was making other passengers uncomfortable. If it was a TSA Sucks! shirt fine, but everybody knows you don't talk about bombs in the airport. That's just stupid.

      They don't even show movies with plane crashes because some people are afraid of flying.

    9. Re:Bombs and terrorists by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "...and the last time a JOKE brought down a plane was????"

      Never. And also irrelevant.

      If you sit in a restaurant loudly talking about how many parasite eggs there probably are in the steak you might be asked to leave as well.

    10. Re:Bombs and terrorists by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      You do have the freedom to express yourself.

      Delta pilots also have the freedom to kick you off their planes if you do so in a disruptive way.

      Which is completely irrelevant to this case because "being brown in charge of a T-shirt" is not disruptive. Repeatedly sending a person for screening who the TSA has already approved and then deciding to ban them rather than just making a clear decision at the begining is being disruptive.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    11. Re:Bombs and terrorists by Glarimore · · Score: 1

      But he wan't being disruptive. It sounds to me like everything was fine, then Delta started making a hubub and questioning/interrogating him at the gate. Also, Common Carriers (which Delta is) are not allowed to discriminate or refuse service unless there is some compelling reason -- a guy wearing a shirt doesn't sound very compelling to me.

    12. Re:Bombs and terrorists by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      He was prevented from flying because he was wearing a shirt joking about bombs and terrorists.

      Bullshit; I shall cut down the article to help you read.

      The Delta supervisor then told me I would be able to board the plane, but only after [...] changing my shirt. [....] I agreed to the stipulations set forth by the Delta supervisor.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    13. Re:Bombs and terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC who used to work at a movie theatre. The back of the ticket stated the management of the theatre reserved the right to refund your ticket and effectively kick you out for any reason whatsoever. It made good business sense to do so in some cases, as a single individual (often a bratty teenager) could ruin the enjoyment of several hundred in a single theatre. In this sense, I absolutely support Delta's decision to refuse this individual onto a flight.

      However, when needing to evict somebody, staff and management were encouraged to do so without incident and drawing as little attention as possible. In this regard, I do not support Delta's decision handling of the situation. Refund the ticket, tell the passenger "find another airline", and go along your merry way.

    14. Re:Bombs and terrorists by richlv · · Score: 1

      i believe they have such rights if you pose a threat to the plane. not just because they don't like you or you express your freedoms... on a t-shirt. not shouting, nothing. what's disruptive about a t-shirt ?

      --
      Rich
    15. Re:Bombs and terrorists by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see your point! Tell me more about how wearing a t-shirt with no pornography, no foul language, and a valid socially-concerned message is disruptive...

    16. Re:Bombs and terrorists by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      Next time you're on a plane, stand up and say "ZOMG BOMBS ZOMG TERRORISTS STUPID TSA! SECURITY THEATER!" and see if you disrupt anything.

    17. Re:Bombs and terrorists by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      I have the right to shoot you in the head if you are raping my daughter. Point being, dumbass, nobody said that dude was being disruptive.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    18. Re:Bombs and terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he do that? I thought he was just wearing a t-shirt, rather than standing up and speaking loudly enough to be heard in the cockpit.

      Thanks for playing, but you've lost. You're an aggressive dick. Feel free to keep on being one but don't expect others to sit back and tolerate it, as is their right - and don't think you can have them banned from anything because they disagree with you, either.

    19. Re:Bombs and terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wearing a t-shirt is disruptive? Gimme a break.

      But let's for a moment assume that it is. Then from now on I'll start complaining as soon as I see a person wearing a plain brown shirt because of all the historical (as well as hysterical) connotations they bring with them. They make me uneasy.

      For that matter, I'll start complaining about guys wearing pink shirts too. And grown-ups wearing anything labeled "Hello Kitty". They all make me uneasy.

  22. Illusions by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While some people grumble and complain about the process, I've also encountered many people who believe what the TSA is doing is actually protecting them from terrorism.

    More to the point, they honestly believe that there are terrorists right around the corner just waiting to blow them up. Not in an abstract but THEM, specifically. You know, it could happen anywhere so it could happen to YOU and it could happen HERE!

    Their lives are so boring and mundane they get a thrill over the possibility that something important could happen to them or someone they know. Even if it is something like a terrorist attack, it makes them feel special. As if the town of Bumfuck, Nowhere was chosen special for a target.

    It gives them something to gossip about. "What if..." It is essentially one of the same motivations that drives people to buy lottery tickets. They can dream "what if..." and not have to face the dull reality that is their life.

    It's really sad.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Illusions by jburroug · · Score: 1

      In my experience the only people who have a positive opinion of the TSA are people that don't ever come into contact with them, i.e. people that don't fly. Experienced travelers pretty nearly universally hate the TSA and think the agency is a waste of resources that does nothing to improve their safety.

      Cheers,

      --
      "Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
    2. Re:Illusions by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      On the day of 9/11, in class, after we had the TVs wheeled into the classrooms and we were watching the newscasts one student actually said, "What if we're next?"

    3. Re:Illusions by chill · · Score: 1

      Remember the anthrax scares right after? There were at least half-a-dozen "ZOMG THERE IS WHITE POWDER ON THIS!" calls to police and the local news in the small town where I lived at the time.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    4. Re:Illusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are so obsessed with what they call "Justice" that they invent criminals to focus their negative emotions on.

      People are raised with ideological beliefs and anyone they encounter who contradicts them are regarded negatively. Logic tends to only come in secondary as a means of rationalizing these beliefs and emotions towards people. People have a tendency to focus on logic that supports their emotions and find excuses and fringe cases to exclude logic that contradicts their emotions. This is why well educated and intelligent people can have beliefs that contradict logic and it's also why it's so difficult to argue against an ideology with facts, really you need to appeal to the persons emotions before bringing in facts.

      So these people use logic secondary to rationalize their beliefs and also motivate them to impose these beliefs on the rest of society, they use them as reasons to create more and more laws and turn people who disagree with their beliefs into "criminals".

      Look around you, see how often vengeance is labeled as "Justice". You'll notice how people react emotionally first then only use logic later to justify themselves. Everyone believes they are morally superior, and so the fighting continues.

    5. Re:Illusions by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sounds like we should work harder on promoting the impending zombie apocalypse as the source of thrills for those who are bored. Then they can vent it by shooting paper at the range pretending that it gives them epic survival skills, and no racism enters the picture as zombies don't care.

    6. Re:Illusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the scene in farenheit 911 where the lady reasons that the terrorists might attack her bingo hall next.

    7. Re:Illusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they honestly believe that there are terrorists right around the corner

      And that alligators hide in their plastic sewer pipe. And an explosive is more dangerous because its packed with uranium instead of ball-bearings.

      It is easy for people to imagine themselves victims of a violent, painful event, except for car accidents which we ignore. But more people die from disease-ridden mosquitoes.

  23. toleration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Just how much humiliation is the general American public willing to tolerate in the name of 'security'?"

    In fascist america, you tolerate it all.

  24. Not the TSA by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As most of you, I only read TFS, but this wasn't the TSA to blame.

    It's completly in a pilots discretion if he want's to have some prankster on board who doesn't care if the whole flight gets delayed because of a funny shirt.

    He has the right to remove anyone from the plane. For anything else, complain to the airline afterwards.

    This system works as long as you put somewhat reasonable and responsible people in the cockpit. And if he pulls that stunt too often, he'll be sanctioned by his employer. That's a completly different situation from some minimum-wage guy who only would get sanctioned for NOT bullying people around and gets paid (and perhaps rewarded) for strictly following procedures, not thinking about if that would be stupid.

    Please note: I don't say what the pilot did was right, but he had the right to make that descision.

    --
    bickerdyke
    1. Re:Not the TSA by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      As most of you, I only read TFS, but this wasn't the TSA to blame. It's completly in a pilots discretion if he want's to have some prankster on board who doesn't care if the whole flight gets delayed because of a funny shirt.

      However, if the TSA didn't waste time harassing him over a stupid t-shirt, the flight would of been in no risk of being delayed. So who's fault is it again?

    2. Re:Not the TSA by Hatta · · Score: 1

      This system works as long as you put somewhat reasonable and responsible people in the cockpit.

      Someone who would eject a passenger because of his t-shirt is neither reasonable nor responsible. Delta owes their customers compensation for their lodging and transportation at a minimum, and they should throw in some free tickets for their wasted time.

      Oh, and fire the idiot pilot.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Not the TSA by tgd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please note: I don't say what the pilot did was right, but he had the right to make that descision.

      This is what happens when make pilots stop drinking before their flights ...

    4. Re:Not the TSA by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Wearing a funny shirt doesn't make one a prankster. People wear funny shirts all the time.

      Incidentally, one of the marks of a good organization, whether governmental or otherwise, is willingness to be criticized. Denying criticism is refusing to entertain the idea that someone outside your organization might possibly see that you're doing something wrong. Criticism is good. It makes you better if you bother to listen to it and sort the valid from the invalid.

    5. Re:Not the TSA by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      That's a completly valid possibility.

      But that's a matter between the airline and the pilot, respectivly the airline and the passenger.

      The fact that the pilot can make descisions that aren't to be questioned immedeatly, doesn't prevent him from beeing responsible for his descisions. Neither does it force the airline to stick to pilots who make wrong descisions.

      The question if the airline owes compensation to the customer is a completly different one. (but related.) Let's take another T-Shirt examply to make it clearer:

      Imagine some guy with a Manchester United jersy wants to board the airplane. Nothing wrong with that. But now imagine a hoard of other guys with Manchester City jerseys already in there. If the pilot now realizes that this might lead to a dangerous situation and removes the single guy from flight, He is right to do so, but still the airline owes that guy a flight (and perhaps an apology and an upgrade when he's rescheduled.)

      We don't know the t-shirt from here, but if it was something along the lines of "I'm a dangerous terrorist!" removing him might have been reasonable to avoid panic from the "simpler" passengers, who don't share the same kind of humour. And I don't think the airline would owe him anything.

      If this happens with just a normal shirt, the airline should react fully as proposed by you. Plus send the pilot to a shrink.

      But the airline should NEVER force the pilot to revoke his decision and carry that guy. That would be a slippery slope. I don't want airline in a position where they can "persuade" a pilot to fly that plane if he thinks that those bolts look a bit rusty....

      --
      bickerdyke
    6. Re:Not the TSA by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      As i just wrote in another answer. That would depend on the actual shirt. Even if managed to explain to the TSA that "I'm a terrorist" is a joke-T-shirt, the pilot would not be to blame.

      --
      bickerdyke
    7. Re:Not the TSA by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > It's completly in a pilots discretion if he want's to
      > have some prankster on board who doesn't care if
      > the whole flight gets delayed because of a funny
      > shirt.

      Not a bad point. But the time for the pilot to make that decision was at the scheduled departure time, before he ever saw Arijit's anti-TSA shirt. It would be entirely reasonable and correct for him to decide to keep to his schedule, have the gate agent award that seat to a stand-by passenger, and if anyone is late, tough cookies.

      But that's not what happened. He decided to wait and then had Arijit removed for nothing more than the content of the shirt. That's the problem. And obviously, the airline decided the pilot was in the wrong, as they compensated Arijit with a new flight. And as a customer-facing employee, it was the pilots responsibility to make the correct decision in the first place.

      And yes, the TSA deserves just as much, perhaps more, blame as the pilot for causing Arijit to be delayed in the first place over such an obviously harmless and obviously POLITICAL (the most important kind of speech to protect) statement as: âoeBombs ZOMG,â âoeZOMG Terrorists Alert level bloodred â" run, run take off your shoes.â Accompanied by the picture you can see on the article, he was very obviously simply mocking the TSA goons, not threatening anybody.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    8. Re:Not the TSA by mbone · · Score: 1

      As most of you, I only read TFS, but this wasn't the TSA to blame.

      It's completly in a pilots discretion if he want's to have some prankster on board who doesn't care if the whole flight gets delayed because of a funny shirt.

      However, if the TSA didn't waste time harassing him over a stupid t-shirt, the flight would of been in no risk of being delayed. So who's fault is it again?

      Sorry, but if the frakking airline says that they think that someone is a security risk, the TSA is going to have to check it out, even if they think it is BS. They did, and they passed him again. I don't see that as doing anything wrong.

    9. Re:Not the TSA by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're expressing concern over the content of someone's t-shirt, you are the one who should be removed. No exceptions. That kind of behavior should never be tolerated.

      Let me restate for emphasis: If you are panicking over the content of someone's t-shirt, you are far more dangerous than the t-shirt wearer.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Not the TSA by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Ok, I probably should have read the article. Espescially if it has pictures...

      But it seems to me that (with the exception of the TSA) everything was handled well and has been fixed. The passenger got compensated and arived at his destination, and the pilots descision will be reviewed and evaluated by the airline.

      --
      bickerdyke
    11. Re:Not the TSA by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      WHY do we give 'drivers' rights like that, to kick people off planes?

      he's skilled, sure, but he's just a driver. he pressed buttons to keep the plane in the air (sort of). he's not some wise sage. he's just a techie like you or me, pretty much.

      I cannot understand why we give authority to such people.

      in fact, most people (most, everywhere you go) don't deserve authority. too many people have too much power. its got to stop!

      look, you fly the plane and if you do that, we'll get along fine. but once you start acting like some cop, that's where I have a problem with the system.

      that goes for ALL of the airline people, too. some stewardess has the ability to get me arrested? what the FUCK is that all about? bleach blonde power syndrome... sigh.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    12. Re:Not the TSA by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Definitly right. But that's a rather high-level view on the matter.

      The pilot has full responsibility for the plane and passengers. And by "full", I mean "FULL". Basically, when boarding a plane or a ship, you're under martial law. At the captains mercy. He will be held responsible for what he does, but usually that's in a review and not immediatly. (That's the part that's missing for the TSA. They can only be sactioned but never praised for thinking instead of following the rules)

      --
      bickerdyke
    13. Re:Not the TSA by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Yes, that would be sensible. I agree with you on that.

      But sometimes you want - espescially pilots - to be overly carefull than sensible.

      If someone panics in midair, that might indeed lead to a dangerous situation. But having the captain ask pre-flight "Ladies and gentlemen, please look around if someone's shirt might scare you later. you will then be removed from the flight before takeoff" sounds like a Monty Python skit and not like a practical solution, even if ot would be technically correct.

      --
      bickerdyke
    14. Re:Not the TSA by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The TSA *DID NOT HARASS HIM*. The TSA *DID NOT RAISE A FUSS ABOUT HIS SHIRT*. The TSA were professional and courteous with him. The person(s) to blame are the racist passengers with no sense of humour, and the Delta pilot who could have said "It's just a guy in a dumb T-Shirt. Don't get your panties in a twist."

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:Not the TSA by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Those rights come bundled with what is called "Full Responsibility".

      Pilots and captains have it because when there's a problem, they can't simply pull right and wait for the friggin AAA like a bus driver could do. Or take the time to call headquarters and ask some manager for instructions. So who would you give authority instead? Some bean counter from airline management?

      I *want* a pilot with the power to say "I don't care how much money 10 minutes delay cost. I'll fly around that thunderstorm!" or "This plane will go nowhere until the brakes are fixed" "But the records say they're good for 3 more weeks " - the pilot should be able to just say "STFU"

      And who gave you the idea that a stewardess could get you arrested?
      The pilot on the other hand...... at least until the plane touches ground again.

      --
      bickerdyke
    16. Re:Not the TSA by colesw · · Score: 1

      You mean where the TSA passed cleared him through security and then at Delta's insistence had to then re-review him, clear him again (this time with some harassment of course), and then have Delta's pilot throw him off the plane? Clearly sounds like that is ALL the TSA's fault! Neither Delta or the pilot did anything wrong at all!

    17. Re:Not the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're expressing concern over the content of someone's t-shirt, you are the one who should be removed. No exceptions. That kind of behavior should never be tolerated.

      Let me restate for emphasis: If you are panicking over the content of someone's t-shirt, you are far more dangerous than the t-shirt wearer.

      You're an idiot. He's not in a tizzy because he thought idjit was 'dangerous' - he's annoyed because idjit is causing a ruckus. A ruckus that can delay the plane, annoy other passengers and generally ruin the day for hundreds of people. If idjit was drunk, openly aggressive or otherwise simply a loud, rude asshole, the pilot would be obligated to get the moron to shut up or kick his ass off the plane.

      Purchasing an airline ticket does not give you license to be a stand up performer. It gives you access to a seat for passage between one place and another.

    18. Re:Not the TSA by Senior+Frac · · Score: 1

      Because, like a [water] ship, fellow passengers can't just get off the plane at the side of the road at the first sign of trouble. Thousands of years of experience have shown why the the captain having this authority is necessary. There are no police to call in an emergency. There is the authority of the captain and, after that, the mob, your fellow passengers. Anyone who has studied mass psychology as a reaction to fear will tell you that you really want the captain making those decisions.

      "Rage against THE MAN!" just isn't going to fly here, in both the metaphorical and literal sense.

    19. Re:Not the TSA by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The only people in the story causing a ruckus are the TSA and the pilot. All the guy in question here did was wear a tshirt.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    20. Re:Not the TSA by milkasing · · Score: 1
      As the FTA makes clear, the passenger in this case went through all the additional checks and did everything asked of him, (including changing the shirt) http://arijitvsdelta.blogspot.co.uk/
      The pilot threw him off AFTER all this. Heck the passenger was a scrawny, compliant, grad student with stage 4 cancer who was traveling back with his wife from a family funeral. The pilot clearly abused his position and suspended for this.
      And yes, the passenger goes out of his way to say that the TSA is not to blame:

      It is worth noting that once TSA was involved and had to question me about the meaning of my shirt, they did treat me with the utmost respect and without any malice. Indeed, the lead TSA agent recognized the absurdity of the situation and even apologized I had to go through all this, saying that he found the entire situation to be ridiculous and that he’d let me fly. The same cannot be same about Delta or NFTA transit police. Shortly afterwards, I labeled the transit police as being “thuggish brutes” and I stand by that characterization. As for Delta, their actions could be at best described as cowardly and racist. (There’s much wrong with the TSA and the entire airport security operation — to wit — but in this case, the TSA agents I personally interacted with were courteous and professional.)

    21. Re:Not the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you read TFA, or the guy's blog, you'd know that the TSA went far beyond simply complying with Delta's request. They harassed him well beyond what was necessary.

    22. Re:Not the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you are panicking over the content of someone's t-shirt, you are far more dangerous than the t-shirt wearer.

      That certainly applies to a T-shirt saying "FUCK the TSA" or something like that. What if it's a T-shirt saying: "I'm going to blow this plane up and you can't stop me even though I just told you what I'm going to do because you are too much of a bunch of pussies to stop people just because they are wearing a T-shirt. This is not a joke. Please stop me I'm dangerous." I'd be OK with someone stopping a person wearing such a T-shirt.

    23. Re:Not the TSA by Alioth · · Score: 1

      No the pilot in this case is the captain. A captain is not merely "the driver", indeed, if the captain is not the flying pilot for this leg he might not even touch (m)any of the controls (it might be the first officer's leg to fly).

      The captain has the final and absolute responsibility for the aircraft, crew and passengers - just like a ship's captain. He is not the driver, he is the law on that aircraft and he is the person with whom the buck stops. It is an *enormous* responsibility to be a ship or aircraft commander. He may have to make tough decisions when the shit hits the fan. Aircraft and ships are not buses you can just pull over to the side of the road, there are very good reasons why the captain has this authority. If you think otherwise, then learn to fly a light aircraft and you'll get a taste of what the words "pilot in command" actually mean in terms of responsibility.

  25. He's a terrorist!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Torture and butcher this monster now!!! How dare anyone speak ill of our government.

  26. In the name of freedom... by counterplex · · Score: 1

    ...we'll destroy what it means to be free. This song about the I.C.E by a Canadian folk singer applies equally well to any part of the security theater that exists in US airports: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4AH_YgN6os

    --
    $x = ($x * 10) % 10 >= 5 ? 1 + int $x : int $x
  27. Text of the shirt by martyros · · Score: 4, Informative

    First, its important to know exactly what the shirt said. Neither the summary nor the article quote it, but the image printed on the shirt seems to say:

    BOMBS ZOMG ZOMG TERRORISTS GONNA KILL US ALL ZOMG ZOMG ALERT LEVEL BLOODRED RUN RUN TAKE OFF YOUR SHOES MOISTURE

    Now, it's always been pretty clear to me that just saying the word "bomb" in an airpot is a recipe for trouble. Lots of signs are posted everywhere saying that all statements must be taken seriously, even if they're said in a joking manner. In other words, you just don't joke about bombs in an airport.

    Secondly, the summary doesn't make it clear that it wasn't the TSA who took issue with things, and ultimately kicked him off the plane, but that it was a guy from Delta. It seems completely plausible to me that some of the other passengers saw his shirt and really were "very uncomfortable". Maybe they shouldn't have been, but nonetheless they were. Given that there were customers who were uncomfortable, and the fact that this guy really should have known better than wear a shirt with "bomb" on it in the airpot, I can see why the Delta rep kicked the guy off the flight.

    --

    TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    1. Re:Text of the shirt by shentino · · Score: 0

      Which is fine and dandy.

      Except that I doubt they gave the guy a refund for the ticket he bought.

      When you refuse service to someone, you don't keep their money.

    2. Re:Text of the shirt by martyros · · Score: 2

      OK, it's one thing to only go off what was said in the summary, but it's another thing to just make stuff up out of thin air and then be offended about it. If you read his blog post, which is linked to from TFA, you'll find that Delta gave he and his wife another flight the next day.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    3. Re:Text of the shirt by bbbaldie · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that we all be responsible for our own actions???

    4. Re:Text of the shirt by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 0

      If your someone gets thrown out of a movie for being a asshole and disturbing the other customers, they don't get a refund either.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    5. Re:Text of the shirt by Fox_1 · · Score: 1

      It's been a while but I do recall being informed in an airport once (in Canada) that it is a crime to joke about bombs at the airports in Canada. This information came as I was watching my carry on being searched and I made an inopportune comment as the agent pulled out my travel clock.
      I think we can all agree he was joking with the shirt. (ZOMG he's serious!!)
      So basically he could have spent the night in jail or paid a fine had he been in Toronto.
      Either way, really poor taste and inconsiderate behaviour on his part, not just the bozos working at Delta or the various cops.

      --
      The rock, the vulture, and the chain
    6. Re:Text of the shirt by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      But did they refund them the cost of the hotel? Or compensate them for their lost time at all?

    7. Re:Text of the shirt by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      you'll find that Delta gave he and his wife another flight the next day.

      To which you should mention that; despite it being standard to provide a hotel for someone who the airline fails to fly, Delta did not do that. He even had to pay for his own hire car. Delta should have taken all of his out of pocket expenses caused by their incompetence but failed to do that.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  28. Wrong beyond belief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Freedom to wear the shirt, not free from the consequences of wearing the shirt.

    The TSA is a government agency.

    The First Amendment applies to Government.

    The TSA is 100% in the wrong no excuses. Period. End of story.

    That Delta pilot and subsequently Delta airlines, although being intolerant douche bags, are well within their rights.

    Jesus F'n Christ! No wonder we're losing our Rights!

    Basic Civics - people!

  29. of course he got booted by nauseum_dot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm going to say that most people 45+ don't know what ZOMG means. Therefore, seeing something that says "Gonna Kill US All ZOMG" would be a bit unnerving. Even though it is security theater, society has norms that state when people deem to be right and wrong. Wearing a shirt that has that message is wrong because it breaks those societal courtesies. Putting someone's grandma in a state of unease for something that is already not exactly the most fun doesn't sit well in my book.

    I applaud the pilot. It is his job to get the plane safely in the air and back to the ground. He probably saw it for what it was, but decided he didn't want one the passengers beating the shit out of this guy mid-air because they felt threatened. Bruce Schneier has pointed out numerous times that the acts against the World Trade Center have empowered the average citizen to stand up and fight if they closely felt threatened. That could have been the case and may have saved the student further grief.

    --
    Crap! I just kissed my karma good-bye.
    1. Re:of course he got booted by acoustix · · Score: 1, Redundant

      "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    2. Re:of course he got booted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who can't say anything original should just STFU.

    3. Re:of course he got booted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to say that most people 45+ don't know what ZOMG means..

      I'm over 45 and I thought ZOMG was a variant on ZOG. I was wondering what someone named Arijit would be doing wearing that.

    4. Re:of course he got booted by Stiletto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow, that was a lot of rationalization. Let's examine the serious crimes you say justified the pilot's actions:

      1. Being "Unnerving" to people aged 45+
      2. Breaking societal courtesies
      3. Putting grandma in a state of unease
      4. Potentially becoming a victim of assault by another passenger

      Yea, I'd say the pilot exercised good judgment. Clearly this guy was a serious threat.

    5. Re:of course he got booted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure you will find some wya to justify the actions against the brown guy.

    6. Re:of course he got booted by sootman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Has anyone, ever, been, for example, shot by someone wearing a shirt that said "I'm going to shoot you" on it? Or seen robbers wearing "I'm going to rob you" shirts?

      When I was a little kid 30 years ago, I always thought the Halloween costumes of the day were dumb -- Darth Vader DOES NOT HAVE A PICTURE OF HIMSELF ON HIS CHEST. Same thing here.

      > I'm going to say that most people 45+ don't know what ZOMG
      > means. Therefore, seeing something that says "Gonna Kill US
      > All ZOMG" would be a bit unnerving."

      Really? People who have lived that long tend to be SOMEWHAT smart. Furthermore, they have DECADES of experience seeing boys and men of all ages in wacky shirts. If a 45 year old saw someone in a shirt that said "blah blah blah Gonna Kill US All blah blah blah" do you REALLY think their first thought would be "Oh my dear sweet white God in heaven, he's announcing his plans to harm me!", or do you think they'd go "Huh? Must be some video game or rock thing I don't know about."

      A 45 year old was a teenager when the Dead Kennedys were in their prime. You think they've forgotten subversive shirts?

      Most probably wouldn't even try to read the letters. Those that did, wouldn't care.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    7. Re:of course he got booted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but once you're on my plane, you're under my command (that's the reason the guy in the left seat is referred to as the "pilot in command" in aviation law). It's not something you go waving in passengers' faces, you want everyone on board to be happy (or as happy as could be reasonably expected, considering today's sardine-can airline policies and the farce the passengers have to go through to get on Air Sardinecan). When you're in the air, it's just the way it has to be, the PIC is responsible for the safety of everyone on board, and in the unlikely event something does happen s/he has to keep order on board to increase the likelihood of everyone on board.

      Now, if I were in that pilot's shoes, I'm not sure what I would've done. I wholly approve of anti-TSA actions like wearing protest shirts, but Arijit took it past a few boundaries that shouldn't have been crossed. I don't have a clue what passenger Y will do once s/he steps on the plane, but I already know that Arijit is capable of doing something stupid while travelling under my command. For all I know he'll have one of those little firework smokebombs (or something else stupid along those lines) on him for shits and giggles and will set off a panic while we're at 30,000 ft. Or maybe someone discussing his shirt will say the word "bomb" loudly enough to start one up. It's like yelling "fire!" in a theatre, some things just aren't reasonable.

      If Thomas Jefferson were on my plane, I'd expect him to recognize my command, and rational thinker that he was, I thoroughly believe that he'd've complied. He could bitch about it all he wants on the ground before or after.

    8. Re:of course he got booted by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even though it is security theater, society has norms that state when people deem to be right and wrong

      Is it too much to ask that those norms be at least partially based on reason?

      Wearing a shirt that has that message is wrong because it breaks those societal courtesies

      In any sane society complaining about a tshirt would be wrong because it breaks social courtesies.

      Putting someone's grandma in a state of unease for something that is already not exactly the most fun doesn't sit well in my book.

      Persecuting people for the contents of their tshirt puts me at unease. Take the paranoid racist grandma off the flight and leave the nice man with the tshirt alone.

      He probably saw it for what it was, but decided he didn't want one the passengers beating the shit out of this guy mid-air because they felt threatened.

      Then he should have removed the people he felt were risks of violence and not the victim.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:of course he got booted by kenorland · · Score: 1

      The pilot doesn't need to "justify his actions"; unless he discriminates against one of those "protected minorities", it's his choice who to accept as passengers, and the only people he has to answer to are his management.

    10. Re:of course he got booted by kenorland · · Score: 1

      "Liberty" also means the right of Delta not to accept someone as passenger, and that's the kind of liberty Delta exercised here.

    11. Re:of course he got booted by nauseum_dot · · Score: 1

      I didn't state that there was a serious crime.

      Although, I did jump to potential conclusions that there may be more than one way to look at it. One might say that there is a fallacy of division on my part because I am assuming (which goes against the grain here) that the pilot is rational and therefore he may have made a rational decision as a whole. I then hypothesize that the decision being rational must have been made up of parts that are could be rational in whole or part, but in reality that may not be the case.

      To the comment "I am sure you will find some wya to justify actions against the brown guy", I do not think this is a race issue. After what has happened in Milwaukee and Aurora, masked men, women, or children carrying, pellet guns, squirt guns, or weapons into crowded places of worship or entertainment warrants removal regardless if they are green, orange, blue, pink, white, brown, or black. Society has norms that underlie the fabric by which we conduct ourselves. Going against these customary norms then results in grief (physical or mental) for the parties involved. It may not lead to assault, battery, etc., but the expectation of hardship for going against the norm exists and should be expected.

      --
      Crap! I just kissed my karma good-bye.
    12. Re:of course he got booted by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First off, go fuck yourself and your "45+" ageism.

      Second, if TSA cleared him, meaning he is no threat, then the pilot or whatever other deuchebag that got their panties in a twist over his shirt should not have had a problem. Grandma in a state of unease? Fuck you. I fly regularly and see people wearing OTT Heavy Metal concert shirts bearing all manner of distasteful imagery and text, and I bet a lot of them do it because THEY KNOW IT BOTHERS PEOPLE(which I think is great, and shows other countries/cultures what is great, or used to be, about America...) with cunt like sensibilities like yours(and Grandmas).

      And to conclude, since the first thing you think about in this situation is violence, violence towards a passenger over a shirt, that is obviously a joke, maybe it's you that needs to be kept off the plane.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    13. Re:of course he got booted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree 100% with your statement. It should also apply to any scantly clad woman who boards a plane. I mean she could potentially be raped in mid air..... In this same scenario she could demand that all men be removed because she fears for her safety. I mean we already treat all men as pedophiles it's part of the policy. Now aren't you glad that you feel safer. Yip yip hurray for the pilot.

      Signed
      F. moron

    14. Re:of course he got booted by manaway · · Score: 1

      To flesh out the above list a little:

      1. People 45+ are familiar with hyperbole, sarcasm, jokes, and unfamiliar abbreviations. An unnerving t-shirt is nearly inconceivable.
      2. Every adult knows that part of societal courtesy is tolerating rebels. Particularly when the rebel is addressing a valid concern.
      3. A whole lot of grandmas are tough and know how to deal with troublemakers. They've faced oppression (e.g. gender, race, age) and petty minds throughout their lives. You do not want to fuck with them.
      4. Yeah, you can argue any position when you're allowed to make up hypotheticals.

      To be fair, there are a lot of people who respect authority, and agree with the GP's rationalizations. They can think clearly in a lot of ways, but can't quite question their obedience to authority (as Stanley Milgram's research demonstrated).

    15. Re:of course he got booted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly this guy was a serious threat.

      He doesn't need to be a serious threat to be removed from an airplane by the pilot. It's a confined space with a lot of people. The pilot is responsible for the lives of everyone on board. Looks like to me he took this seriously. Some dude comes in and for some reason passengers on board are not getting along with him. Check with flight crew: would this be easier if we remove him, put him on a flight tomorrow? Yep, ok, done.

      Lesson: Don't look to cause trouble when boarding Delta aircraft. You don't have a "right" to fly on delta aircraft. They can't kick you off for being Indian, but they *can* kick you off for about any other reason.

      The government was curious (probably because he had a shirt that said BOMB with an inside joke on it), but didn't detain him too long, he wasn't arrested, he wasn't thrown in prison, he wasn't assaulted. Ya, seems like bit of an overreaction by the government for a peaceful protest (at least from his description), but I'm not sure how this equals a brave new world.

      There are plenty of other examples of the TSA actually violating the laws of our land. We don't need to rally behind this yahoo simply because he knows what ZOMG means and loves t-shirts.

    16. Re:of course he got booted by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      He probably saw it for what it was, but decided he didn't want one the passengers beating the shit out of this guy mid-air because they felt threatened.

      Would someone really beat up a cooperative 6 foot 2" and 120 pounds cancer patient for a t-shirt he had been wearing -- but agreed to take off just before boarding a flight? I guess a 100 pounds little girl could easily beat him up, but if you ask me, that would really have to be a f-----d up little girl.

      Most adults know not to instigate a fight with someone on a plane, or they'll get banned for life from flying anywhere. And most adults know not to instigate a fight with someone much weaker than they are, especially when other people are watching.

  30. 3 steps to undeserved fame by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 0
    • 1. Go out of your way to piss off government officials.
    • 2. Complain about the predictable abuse this attracts.
    • 3. Collect undeserved admiration on Slashdot.
    1. Re:3 steps to undeserved fame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot......

      4. Profit!!!

    2. Re:3 steps to undeserved fame by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      You forgot......

      4. Profit!!!

      Only ONE step to downmodding on Slashdot: fail to express sufficient contempt for any agency of the US government mentioned in any article.

  31. Re:Freedom of thought? Freedom of speec? Not so mu by memeplex · · Score: 0

    I think this guy got exactly what he wanted: publicity for the anti-TSA cause. Try "saying" something loud about bombs or terrorism in a security line or on a plane. You're asking for trouble, and you know it. I'm not saying it's good or justified, but I don't walk up to cops on the street with anti-police shirts with "robbery", "assault" or "weapon" on them, even though it's legal.

  32. nt by shentino · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight.

    Even AFTER the tsa boards the guy, the pilot, lord of his personal fiefdom, can expel a passenger just for wearing a t-shirt, and even after he already paid for his plane ticket?

    1. Re:nt by cusco · · Score: 1

      Yup, and the airline doesn't have to give him a refund or put him on another flight. I think he gets to keep his air miles though.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:nt by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yes a pilot can refuse to carry any passenger, for any reason. If the airline disagrees they can discipline the pilot, but if the pilot feels like grounding the flight and walking away he can do that.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:nt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Pilots have complete authority on board their plane.

    4. Re:nt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Basically yes.

      The purpose of that policy is to allow the pilot broad discretion so they can trow out troublemakers (say the person who instists on screaming "the song that never ends" at the top of his lungs) in the interest of making the flight more pleasant for everyone. There's also a certain amount of naval tradition showing here (aircraft being treated similarly to ships) where the captain is allowed to say "not on my ship", and the company who owns the ship has to replace the captain to overrule him.

      Now that said, the airline should refund the ticket of anyone they refuse service to. And a court would probably agree with that. Also causing a media circus whenever a pilot does something like this would be a good way to get bigoted pilots replaced (pilots are valuable so you'll have to push the cost of PR damage control into the range where it's actually better to hire another one than to deal with the PR mess).

    5. Re:nt by mbone · · Score: 2

      So let me get this straight.

      Even AFTER the tsa boards the guy, the pilot, lord of his personal fiefdom, can expel a passenger just for wearing a t-shirt, and even after he already paid for his plane ticket?

      You bet. The pilot is Captain, and no one flies on his (or her) plane unless he approves.

      More than that -

      I know someone who received a lifetime ban from British Airways for getting very drunk on a trans-Atlantic flight. (Among other things, they spilled a Bloody Mary on an entire row of passengers.)

      Now, I am not saying that it wasn't deserved, but it was done on the spot, with recourse and no appeal. So, yes, they can do that too.

      In this case, apparently he and his wife were flown the next day. Inconvenient, but not so bad.

      I have to wonder what reaction a t-shirt saying "Banned for Life from British Airways" might get from Delta.

  33. As the humorous slogan goes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The beatings will continue until morale improves!

    The abuses will continue for exactly as long as we the people of the United States of America continue to allow our elected representatives to labor under the false assumption that we are cowards who place a greater value on our safety than our liberty, and on our security than our dignity. The TSA does not respect us because we allow them to show us blatant disrespect, and get away with it. Want to put a stop to the abuses, folks? Stop flying on the airlines. Call your representatives and tell them about your decision. Then BY GOD stick by it!!!

    When enough people do this it WILL stop. If you refuse... expect the groping, racial discrimination, and other wanton abuses of power to continue and realize that if you acquiesce, YOU RIGHTLY DESERVE THE ABUSE for you are a coward! That's why I haven't traveled by air in years. I FUCKING REFUSE to be so treated.

  34. The US population LOVES the TSA by bheuvel78 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Not sure why you all complain, the US loves the TSA:

    Despite recent negative press, a majority of Americans, 54%, think the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is doing either an excellent or a good job of handling security screening at airports. At the same time, 41% think TSA screening procedures are extremely or very effective at preventing acts of terrorism on U.S. airplanes, with most of the rest saying they are somewhat effective.

    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/poll_americans.html

    1. Re:The US population LOVES the TSA by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Of course they won't complain. The TSA has them by the balls.

    2. Re:The US population LOVES the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, nevermind all the people disputing that poll over the bias of the questions... Hey it's numbers you like so use 'em right!

  35. God Bless The TSA by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to combine the tune "God Bless The USA" with some choice lyrics about the TSA to create "God Bless The TSA". It goes viral, everyone hums the tune while boarding and TSA employees start looking like kings with no clothes.

    --
    I come here for the love
  36. Really? by Senior+Frac · · Score: 0

    This is a knee-jerk reaction, but I am going to just say it anyway.

    My instinct tells me it is much more likely they were denied for just being jerks during the whole ordeal. I just find it highly unlikely that someone would decide to wear such a shirt in advance, arrive at the terminal, and not do or say other things to provoke. I suppose it's possible... in some alternate universe.

  37. Privilege, not a right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone needs to realize that convenient travel is a privilege, not a right. The only guaranteed form of travel is on foot. The faster forms of travel (air, train, auto) are only available to us because of the good will of large corporations and governments. If we're not willing to follow their rules and pay a premium, we don't deserve to move around easily.

    1. Re:Privilege, not a right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you're saying the government should be allowed to regulate all forms of travel other than walking? kiss my ass nanny state homo.

    2. Re:Privilege, not a right by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 2

      Travel by other than foot is a privilege and provided by the good will of corporations and government, maybe I should have heard a woosh when i read that but would you kindly point me to the Article of the Constitution that says or even implies the US government has the authority to regulate all forms of travel, and as for corporations, are you implying that I must buy a bicycle, I can't build my own because that will cause some corporation to lose money.

      You need help.

    3. Re:Privilege, not a right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you've never heard of the FAA or the DMV.

    4. Re:Privilege, not a right by robsku · · Score: 1

      The privilege to run travel business, like airline, depends on "good will" of customers to pay for such services - everyone needs to realize that this is a two way street, and criticizing, boycotting and encouraging others to boycott a company are peoples rights, not privileges...

      I'm not clear what your argument is supposed to be, but I know if I were treated this way I would most certainly not use that company's services anymore - but in Finland, where I live, I would find this kind of treatment most extraordinary anyway...

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  38. Isn't Delta actually at fault here? by Tridus · · Score: 1

    Not that I don't love a good TSA bashing (because they deserve it), but he got through TSA screening without incident. It was a Delta supervisor who raised a fuss, and then Delta who wouldn't let him on the plane after he was cleared by security a *second* time.

    Lets make sure we blame the right people for this kind of nonsense. This is corporate bullshit, not government bullshit.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  39. European TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't know about US, but here in EU I managed to (first unknowingly) carry around a Walther 3.something inch folding tactical knife through 3 airport security checks. Had to show, find and pack in plastic some astray liquids though and throw away one forgotten-in-my-bag metallic lighter (such a fancy one they give away with two packs of cigarettes for promotion).

    As I discovered it while already at my destination, I had the definite plan to try to take it back home with me. Worked like a charm.

    1. Re:European TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the captcha for the post was "ashamed" but not really. Just what might have happened if I asked during flight the flight-attendant "I'm sorry, is this an allowed item? ARRRH!".

    2. Re:European TSA by ledow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I once knew an American girl who came to visit in England. She came over with a friend of mine and then we were all travelling on to Corfu. On the queue to airport security on the way to Heathrow to fly to Corfu, she pulled something out of her bag and said "Is this alright to take on the plane if they don't allow fluids? It's been in my bag for months"

      It was a CS spray. Totally, 100% illegal to even own in the UK, let alone bring with you in your hand luggage from America to the UK, unchecked.

      She was hastily silenced by her English companion, who dropped it into one of those "prohibited water bottle" bins, and we just moved down the line.

      She would have been arrested on the spot if she was carrying it in the UK (even owning it is arrestable!). But she'd managed to go through the US customs, through UK customs and only because SHE pulled it out on her second trip through did anyone even know it was there. And this was only a few years ago - still recent enough to have the liquids-on-planes paranoia.

  40. Right. Using the same logic... by demon+driver · · Score: 1

    ... the Jews in Nazi Germany were free to be Jews. Just not free from the consequences of being brought to concentration camps and murdered.

    (This is *not* comparing the event told by TFA to the shoah, by the way and just in case.)

    But thanks for the brilliant demonstration of how dubious the term "free" sometimes gets used and probably is never going to stop to be used.

  41. Now remember kids by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    TSA:

    Terrorists
    Suppressing
    Americans

    --
    Time to offend someone
    1. Re:Now remember kids by ramsun · · Score: 1

      TSA:
        Terrorists
      Suppressing
      Americans

      No, no, you have it all wrong.

      Traumatic Sexual Assault

      Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all day.

  42. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Profiling is not politically correct! But poking our fingers into every of your holes so is :)

  43. RT is journalisim? by 3count · · Score: 1

    I'm sure something happened here, but all RT reports is a summary of the blog entry. I've watched RT (it is broadcast over the air in my part of the U.S.) and it is most certainly not a neutral source. Did anyone review the police reports? Get the scoop from a Delta spokesperson? Talk to his wife, or another passenger in the area? Surely the TSA and airline industry have earned their reputation. But there are also people looking to paint them all in a bad light. This is very disturbing if true. I want to see some independent accounts before I believe I understand what happened. Hopefully some other news sources will pick up the story.

  44. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RT is Russian state media, backed by the Kremlin.

    What could possibly be their interest in stoking this kind of discontent?!

  45. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

    My god, that is a mess. And another reason why I just drover over 2000 miles for my last vacation.

  46. The Shirt Worked by Stickerboy · · Score: 1

    I don't agree with the treatment that he received. And I'm highly critical of the TSA security theater as well. But I'm curious what kind of response he was expecting when he purposefully went through airport wearing that T-shirt.

    Back in the '70s, people did this kind of shit expecting to get arrested - that was at least part of the point of civil disobedience.

    If he wears a T-shirt walking through Harlem that says "PLEASE DONATE TO THE N*ERS NEED TO GO BACK TO AFRIKA FUND" I would expect that he would get the shit kicked out of him fairly quickly, free speech or no free speech. If the police are interviewing him as a person of interest (or me, or whoever) and he chooses to wear a T-shirt that says "ZOMG ARENT THE DONUTZ GETTING COLD PIGZ" I would expect that he would be harassed there (at a minimum), as well, rights or no rights.

    I may defend the right of this dude to wear the shirt wherever he wants, but intentionally provoking the TSA will cause a reaction. And if he doesn't realize that, then either A) he's an idiot or B) being disingenuous about his civil disobedience, which loses him respect.

    --
    Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:The Shirt Worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if he should have *expected* to be harassed, then it's all okay. I guess it was all his fault, after all - how *dare* he speak out against security theater and have the *gall* to expect airline staff to act professionally about it. Nothing to see here, folks - he was clearly asking for it, so there's no cause for alarm or any complaints. I'm surprised they didn't beat him up and shoot his dog for good measure! That'd show him how to dress properly and love our wonderful, necessary security behemoth. I'm glad everything went as expected! Such a relief!

  47. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by cffrost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America is the only country that gropes It's passengers. Israel profiles, & has no hijackings.

    Profiling by ethnicity doesn't work; for one thing, it's vulnerable to proxy bomb attacks. I've posted links on this many times before; search for the "Carnival Booth" paper from MIT. I recommend Schneier's site or DuckDuckGo.

    El Al's security apparatus (behavioral profiling, interviews, luggage depressurization, and tarmac security, off the top of my head) have been said to be infeasible due to scalability in a country of over 300 million. However, I haven't seen an data to back up this claim, nor have I done the math.

    I'm not saying I support the current system; I find it deplorable and refuse to fly, going on six years. I'd like to see a return to sane, pre-2001-09 security procedures. At least, that's what it'd take to get me to voluntarily set foot on a commercial airliner again.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  48. Don't fly Delta by oracleofbargth · · Score: 1

    The moral of this story is: Don't fly with Delta.

    They've screwed up every trip I've taken on their airline. Never giving them my business again.

    1. Re:Don't fly Delta by rk · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I would rather crawl to my destination over crushed glass and concertina wire than ever get on a Delta aircraft again.

  49. BOYCOTT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will you clueless sheep start taking back you rights and BOYCOTT THE AIRLINES until the economic pressure forces the TSA (tough sh!t a$$holes) to be disbanded? GET SOME BALLS!!!!!

  50. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by icebraining · · Score: 2

    Israel profiles, & has no hijackings.

    Since I started walking with a rock in my pocket, I have never been robbed. Clearly rocks in pockets prevent thefts.

  51. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, lots of countries neither grope nor profile and they have no hijackings.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

  52. Pilots have final say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pilots have final say about what goes on their plane.

    They are completely responsible for the plane.

    Now it is a matter of common sense that they're going to let paying customers on, but if they say "No" then it is "No." There is no appealing their decision. It is final.

    Now you might wonder why that is, but consider this - ultimately when you are 30,000' up in the air or more, they are sitting in the cockpit and they are responsible for your health and everyone else's. Plus the cargo. With that responsibility comes the ultimate choice of what they will and will not allow on their plane.

    And yes, consider the plane the pilot's personal fiefdom. It is and rightly so.

  53. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by v1 · · Score: 1

    Lets also not forget that israel will try to blow you up if you're carrying a bomb.

    But I see your point. We refuse to officially "profile" people, to "protect our rights". And then we get groped "because it's necessary". So, they're protecting our rights, so a few feet down the line they can violate them anyway.

    Wonderful system we have here. And so much less effective on top of it.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  54. Wife must be chapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I bet his wife kicked his a** for wearing that shirt which cause them to miss the flight. Flying is stressful enough with "political statements' messing you up.

  55. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    El Al's security apparatus (behavioral profiling, interviews, luggage depressurization, and tarmac security, off the top of my head) have been said to be infeasible due to scalability in a country of over 300 million. However, I haven't seen an data to back up this claim, nor have I done the math.

    Oh, the math is easy.

    Doing it THAT way would require them to actually train (as opposed to simply recognizing the threat color scheme) and pay skilled-worker wages, as opposed to giving a badge to -- well, to what we have now (See? I was nice)

  56. phD student by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? And you're wearing that shirt? Unless you're a genius at Einstein-level who can get away with breaking most social conventions, you're just acting like a trolling jerk, and an embarrassment to the department. You're 31 years old, not 12. Sure, you're flying an airplane and not receiving the Nobel Prize, but have some decorum and wear something sensible. Even professors wear tacky hawaiian shirt for casual days, but Arijit is just trolling and making the rest of grad students look like dipshits.

  57. Uncomfortable by cffrost · · Score: 1

    The pilot who threw this passenger off and the other authoritarians who harassed him claimed that the other passengers were "uncomfortable" with him being on the plane. I'm not sure what what the hell is wrong with them, but I feel pretty uncomfortable having such cowardly dolts living in my state, never mind being stuck on a plane with them.

    I suppose it's one more benefit of my ongoing boycott of airline security theater and their disregard for the first and fourth amendments of the Constitution: not being stuck for hours with a bunch of assholes.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  58. tl;dr version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jack booted thugs are jack booted thugs, film at 11.

    1. Re:tl;dr version by inerlogic · · Score: 1

      jack booted thugs are jack booted thugs, film at 11.



      sorry this was me, didn't realize i wasn't logged in... need more coffee...
  59. It isn't just the TSA.. its government in general by Shivetya · · Score: 0

    Got to love the K9 unit approval http://www.wmufradio.com/Archive08-19-12.html in Henry Tennessee that the article mentions. You will need to scroll down halfway to find the right section At least locals are being honest the fact they aren't after making the public safer, in some cases it is just pure greed. The TSA's existence is in some aspects motivated by the same.

    "Henry Board approves K9 program, part time help for office

    Henry, Tenn.- At the Henry Mayor and Board of Alderman meeting on Tuesday, board members decided to allow police chief David Andrews to institute a K9 program for the Henry Police Department.

    Andrews told board members that the city is missing out on possible revenues that a K9 would bring. He said when you make traffic stops and the driver refuses to allow a search, their hands are tied. If a drug dog alerts on a vehicle, its gives officers probable cause to search a vehicle for drugs or illegal proceeds from drugs. More drug arrests and drug, cash, and vehicle seizures lead to more revenues coming in for the police department and city."

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  60. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Desler · · Score: 0

    So your evidence that Israel's system doesn't actually prevent hijackings is what exactly? You do have something more substantial than a lame attempt at a "correlation is not causation" argument, right?

  61. Dear British person by alispguru · · Score: 2

    (guessing from your use of "Yanks")

    A bunch of us agree with you. Between the traumas of 9/11 and our self-inflicted over-reaction to it, it may take us a generation to dial our national paranoia back to appropriate levels, but we'll probably succeed.

    While we're working on that, could you please look into fixing your libel laws? The whole "I'm suing because you told people something true" thing has got to go, really.

    Thanks,
    USA

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
    1. Re:Dear British person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to ask how that video surveillance of every square inch of their territory is going. I hear it's keeping the vestigal monarchy safe.

    2. Re:Dear British person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi,

      the whole suing thing, we don't really do that to much around here.
      Certainly not when we eat the plastic wrappers of food, or had the radio on in the stables or ...

    3. Re:Dear British person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the truth of the statement is a valid defence against libel laws and whilst its one of many laws that could be cleaned up, it does deal with a real issue.

      An example would be the papers, blogs, or websites publishing that you were on the sex offenders list. I'm not sure I entirly agree with them doing that in the first place (because of the publics reaction, and because you can get put on the list for significantly more reasons than raping kiddies, but everyone will assume you rape kddies) but lets say you were completely innocent and not on the list in the first place. Hell, lets say the paper retracted you from the list the next day. What does that matter, your life is effectivly ruined either way.

      Should you have recourse? i'd say so.

    4. Re:Dear British person by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      I think the US holds the lead in libel laws (Hot Coffee at McDonalds, etc).

      I really hope we can dial it back but once power is granted as we did in the "Patriot" Act it is rarely given up. But we've done it before and perhaps we can do it again.

    5. Re:Dear British person by robsku · · Score: 1

      (guessing from your use of "Yanks")

      Hey, I use that too, and I'm Finnish (or my native language word "jenkki").

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  62. When you go looking for trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you find it. No story here.

  63. Don't Give Up On Us, We Haven't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rest of the World,

    Please don't give up hope on us yet. The youth are willing to make massive changes, want to see things cleaned up, more rights taken back, more services for the needy, and all in all, a more enjoyable life that isn't being a slave to corporate or government wishes. We see ourselves as being *their* masters. We see both entities as being part of the puzzle to help each other reach a better quality of life. We have more compassion for people of all types, and want to see that better quality of life, and fairness, for all. Look at polls to see the shift in attitudes of the Millennial generation versus previous generations. The older generations are stuck clinging to their ways due to fears from intense cold war propaganda during their childhoods. It is unfortunate, but true. But the Baby Boomers are near retirement age, and so can't stay in control for much longer. As the younger generation becomes more politically active and reaches the necessary ages to run for bigger offices, there will be change. It cannot be stopped.

    Within a decade or so we'll be able to put all this nonsense behind us, so you won't need to have concern anymore. There is a lot of hope for the future, even if it appears a little rough right now.

    -- USA youth

    1. Re:Don't Give Up On Us, We Haven't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      There is so much naivete in this post, I'm naming it Bambi.

    2. Re:Don't Give Up On Us, We Haven't by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They are almost cute at that age. They are going to change everything. They just don't understand anything yet.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Don't Give Up On Us, We Haven't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the "youth" always say that shit. Then they grow up and realize it's not that easy. That's usually because youth tend to find history to be too boring to read until it's too late.

      As they say, youth is wasted on the young.

  64. Just broke the irony meter here by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

    /. managed to finally break the irony meter.

    All the bitching about obummer, and sucking Ron&Rand Paul's "Libertarian" penis because they're anti-tsa.

    Except it wasn't the TSA who caused this, is was a business exercising its right to refuse service, because the guy was a douschebag and work a t-shirt to make other paying customers uncomfortable. Rand and Ron have nothing against businesses enforcing their own set of standards and ethics. Businesses can do whatever the fuck they want under Ron and Rand.

    And BTW If your going to try that kind of stunt; and least make sure you get a refundable ticket.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  65. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by norfolkboy · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they didn't think it was 'legitimate rape' ?

  66. OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As has been pointed out many times before:
    The huge line waiting to be get cancer or get groped (or both) seems like maybe a good target if someone wants to blow up (or shoot) some folks. Also better prospects of escaping than on an airplane at 35,000 feet! Actually, anyplace large numbers of people gather could be a terrorist target. Remember the movie Black Sunday?

    The point is that there are many potential targets easier to hit than a commercial airliner.

  67. I don't see the problem here by v1 · · Score: 1

    The TSA wasn't the problem, it was the privately owned airliner that offed him.

    A private company can refuse service to anyone for any reason except where legally protected. (race, religion, physical disability, vetran, etc)

    Shirt or no shirt. They could have done the same thing without citing any reason. Maybe their official line should have been "we won't let you fly 'cuz your momma dresses you funny". They're a private company, they're allowed to do that.

    I don't personally like any of the above exceptions. I don't think the govt should be able to force you to provide services to any person or group. But too many people were being dicks to the same groups so we had to make laws to protect those groups from "stupid people in large numbers". *shrug* I suppose a small dent in my rights to prevent a significant number of others from getting a large dent in their rights is a sensible tradeoff.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:I don't see the problem here by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      I know 103% of people will disagree with me but I think people/companies should be forced to serve anyone.
      If they want to call that slavery that good for them.
      "Sorry Walmart, you don't want to serve that one Arab speaking Muslim with a Burka, you get fined 10 billion dollars."
      "And mom and pop store, 1 million," it should be related to size of company.
      If the person is damaging products then that is a different story but Good Ole' Boys(trademark sterotypical South) think a black is annoying then too bad.
      Now this does apply only to "commercial" stores.
      If there is an assumption that anyone can shop - it applies.
      Someone's house is different.

      I don't divide places into only public and private.
      Stores can be commercial, when open, which is different.
      Similarly I don't think a random Joe can wlk in with a gun, legally acquired, into a prison like it is a park.

      I do like your "protected group" exception.
      Many people agree with a protected group but I think it should apply to all people.
      Why should civil rights only work with blacks and disabled. I thought all people had rights.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
  68. Not the TSA this time by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but he had the balls to risk some heat to exercise his rights and bring attention to the stupidity of the TSA.

    It was not the TSA that were being stupid here - they passed him through all the security checks the first time without any particular issue. The problem here lies in the general reaction of US society. Yes the guy was being an idiot and living in the US should have known the likely outcome but why is it that nobody could recognise him for the idiot that he was and treat the situation appropriately? Blowing it out of all proportion like this only makes the authorities appear like idiots themselves and encourages more of this stupid behaviour because of all the attention their response gets. You would have thought that with a lesson like the Salem witch trials 300+ years ago US society would have learnt the lesson by now.

    1. Re:Not the TSA this time by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If by lesson, you mean, "we can burn innocent people on trumped up charges and get away with it," then yes, there was a lesson there. However, I don't think it was the lesson you think was learned.

      Thing is, this is a very strong example of the difference between public and private in the US. He did something he has every right to do, which is wear an inflammatory statement on a t-shirt. Delta did what they had every right to do: ban him from the aircraft. Arjit was counting on the fact that the government is bound by the First Amendment. What he failed to consider is that Delta Airlines is not, and they didn't feel like dealing with him.

      In short, if he was prepared for this result as a part of a larger protest, then I get it. If he just wanted to get from one place to another, he's a moron.

    2. Re:Not the TSA this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seeing as all airlines are private they are in a special situation where they should not be allowed to act arbitrarily. We aren't talking about someone wandering into your private business here. As long as you provide a vital public service you should be beholden to the Constitution. If this is unacceptable then the airlines should be nationalized.

    3. Re:Not the TSA this time by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You see this sort of thing on consumer advocacy sites all the time. Some petty beaurocrat from an airline will get their panties in a bunch and you will be denied entry to the airplane. It's not just limited to people that are trolling the TSA.

      This seems much less like an example of the TSA acting like brown shirts. This seems to be the all too common case of some b*tch at the gate going on a power trip.

      Trivial nonsense can set these people off. You don't have to be confrontational at all.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Not the TSA this time by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1
      Yes it was. From the article:

      he was then surrounded by agents with both the TSA and a crew from the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

      It was not ONLY the TSA being stupid but they and their directives to all security agencies are at the heart of this type of issue.

      They also weren't there telling the local security to stand down because they had already checked him...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    5. Re:Not the TSA this time by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      The point is it's a very slippery slope. If you start accommodating authority simply to accommodate them without a valid reason, authority starts expecting more than they are entitled. Why is wearing a T-shirt mocking the TSA bad when wearing a turban is protected? Both instances are in the same damned constitutional amendment.

      Freedom of religion and speech. The FUNDAMENTAL foundations of our country should not be taken so lightly.

      If Delta booted him over the objections of the Feds and local security that's one thing. In this case the feds and locals were in agreement with Delta and that's a problem.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    6. Re:Not the TSA this time by manaway · · Score: 1

      In short, if he was prepared for this result as a part of a larger protest, then I get it. If he just wanted to get from one place to another, he's a moron.

      Yes, because in America people can only do one thing at a time. Or is that just the morons?

    7. Re:Not the TSA this time by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      It was not ONLY the TSA being stupid but they and their directives to all security agencies are at the heart of this type of issue.

      I don't quite agree. The "surrounded by agents" bit only happened after passengers complained about feeling uncomfortable because of his tee-shirt. If passengers complained about someone I would expect any security operation to take it seriously. You could argue, and I would probably agree, that it was overkill once they learnt what people were uncomfortable about (real terrorists would never attract attention to themselves in this way) but the article explains that he was examined again more thoroughly and still allowed to board the aircraft. Had that been the end of the story I doubt we would have heard about it. "Idiot wearing anti-TSA slogan gets more rigourous security checks but is still allowed to board the aircraft" would hardly be newsworthy would it?

    8. Re:Not the TSA this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US society is not a monolithic beast. San Francisco is not Dallas. Boston is not Buffalo. You'd do well to keep that in mind when making blanket statements about "US society"

    9. Re:Not the TSA this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. The TSA initiated the difficulties and passive free/political speech is not unexpected in the U.S., would he have been bounced if he were wearing a pot leaf or anti-fracking t-shirt? The whole thing just strikes of conceding to and justifying hysteria.

    10. Re:Not the TSA this time by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      In short, if he was prepared for this result as a part of a larger protest, then I get it. If he just wanted to get from one place to another, he's a moron.

      He must have been trying to get out of going to that funeral!

    11. Re:Not the TSA this time by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      I find it hard to believe people actually spent time reading a shirt. That's a lot of print so it wasn't like it was in 4 inch letters, and it's upside down around a circle.

      It's a *whole lot* more believable that said general public saw a 'furriner' and was uncomfortable with him.

      I'll stand by that the TSA should have been telling the locals and Delta to stand down and let the guy board. If the rest of the plane is uncomfortable, they are more than free to get off and take a different flight. But HE shouldn't have been booted off because someone else was uncomfortable.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    12. Re:Not the TSA this time by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It reminds me of when Southwest kicked off some girl for wearing skimpy clothes. The airlines can be arbitrary and capricious, and aren't bound by the rules that the government is. Luckily, there are multiple airlines still, so you have some choice in which one you take your business to, though it's really not that much in practicality.

    13. Re:Not the TSA this time by steveg · · Score: 1

      How did the TSA initiate this?

      They asked him about the t-shirt, he explained, and they said, Cool, you can go now. They didn't pull him aside, by the way -- he elected to not to go through the scanner for medical reasons, so he accepted the pat-down.

      Then the Delta gate supervisor saw the shirt and freaked.

      I'm no fan of the TSA, but they behaved in a professional, even rational fashion. Not so, Delta.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    14. Re:Not the TSA this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now the Constitution guarantees your right to fly commercial?

    15. Re:Not the TSA this time by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      As long as you provide a vital public service you should be beholden to the Constitution.

      You are! Except, the Bill of Rights is generally pretty specific that it is referring to what CONGRESS can and cant do, so (with the exception of local legislatures who are also bound under those terms) if you arent Congress then it doesnt restrict you.

      So yes, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" 'applies' to Delta, but seeing as they arent Congress it does not restrict them.

      Private businesses have the right to decide that youre an idiot and they dont want to deal with you, and honestly thats not a right I want removed.

    16. Re:Not the TSA this time by richlv · · Score: 1

      i would say that labeling him an idiot is an indication of some sort of a mental deficiency, though. as a minimum, absolute lack of critical thinking and sense of humour. which is kinda sad.

      --
      Rich
    17. Re:Not the TSA this time by richlv · · Score: 1

      what's so terrible about the statement on the t-shirt ? did you even read it ?
      nevertheless, if a company offering a public service is considered to have such rights in the usa... yeah, you're fucked up.

      --
      Rich
    18. Re:Not the TSA this time by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      US society is not a monolithic beast.

      No society is a monolithic beast. However you can make generalizations about behaviour about the usual way in which it works. There may be some places in the US where this incident would have happened differently - either better or worse - but that does not invalidate an observation that the US public in general seems to be far more willing than other countries to allow witch-hunts. You can certainly argue that this might be an invalid hypothesis but to argue that the concept of "typical societal behaviour" is invalid because there is variation is akin to arguing that an average mark on an exam is an invalid concept because no student actually scored that mark.

    19. Re:Not the TSA this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Delta has a right (but not an obligation) to do certain things, within the limits of the laws and regulations. They also have an obligation to do other things (and thus also an obligation) due to other laws and regulations.

      In this case they discretionally exercised a right (not an obligation) to bar a paying customer to stay on one of their aircrafts due to a specific t-shirt. In the end it was a poor judgement of them, poor customer service and poor publicity. The crew deserve a reprimand for not having acted in the the business interest of their employer.

      Unless, of course, Delta's personnel handbook state that this is exactly what they should do, in which case it is poor judgement by Delta's executive management.

    20. Re:Not the TSA this time by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Yes, because in America people can only do one thing at a time. Or is that just the morons?

      You're being redundant again.....

      (hardyharhar. It's a joke. It's not supposed to be politically correct. If it offends you, then there must be some truth to it in your eyes....)

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    21. Re:Not the TSA this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy may as well have walked into harlem wearing a t-shirt saying I hate niggers. There's free speech and there's stupidity. Some more examples you say? Sure! Go to a pub in Manchester wearing a Liverpool jersey while waving a scarf that says If you're a Manc, you're a wank. Not getting it? Miss USA wearing a sash saying fat people are gross.

      All of these are things which most people will cringe at or think something along the lines of what an . Personally, I agree! Maybe the TSA t-shirt isn't as xtreme as these, but the guy was still asking for it - and got it. Again, not saying I agree with what was done, but I'm not even remotely surprised.

      -- Common Sense, exit, stage left.

  69. Re:Not quite by coinreturn · · Score: 1

    +1 you busted that failed comparison but good.

  70. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by bbbaldie · · Score: 1

    I think this is a hell of a lot more disturbing than some flamboyant dude who was testing the waters to see just what he could get away with. My own two cents' worth, let the roasting begin...

  71. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Stiletto · · Score: 1

    Where is the evidence that it does?

  72. oblig: by squizzar · · Score: 1

    "... and if you don't want to pay your taxes, you're free to spend a weekend with the pain monster"

  73. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by mjr167 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isreal actually trains thier security to look for suspicious behavior instead of assuming everyone is a suspect. Profiling doesn't neccessarily mean "assume all blacks/arabs/hispanics/whater are guilty." I can also mean "the suspicious looking guy might be guilty so lets go talk to him." You will also notice that countries that are actually afraid of terrorist bombings don't have long lines outside security checkpoints because terrorists like to bomb the checkpoints. If you care about security you get everyone through the check point as quickly as possible. We just like harrassing innocent citizens.

  74. Lose Lose Situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be honest, there was no way TSA could win here.

    If they let the person fly, and he caused trouble (very doubtful, but possible), they are the devil for knowing he had an "anti-government" (I'll admit, that's a stretch) t-shirt on, and did nothing about it.
    If they kick the person off the flight, you get this article.

  75. ACLU by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    It looks like multiple law suits against American and the TSA are going to be filed. Clearly, Arjilit has the right to wear a tee shirt that mocks the TSA as this is a freedom of speech and expression issue. As long as Arjilit was cooperative and non-combative, it will be a bad day to be the director of the TSA and have to answer for this. I can see the director of the TSA taking some Rolaids or Alka Seltzer over this.

  76. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    He didn't claim it doesn't actually prevent hijackings. He pointed out that just because there have been no hijackings doesn't mean the system stopped them.

    There have been no hijackings in the US since 9/11, does that mean TSA security theater works?

  77. Whose humiliation? by Feyshtey · · Score: 2

    The general American public will tolerate enormous amounts of humiliation and discomfort, so long as its you that is humiliated or discomforted. Or that guy over there. Or one of those Tea Party nuts, or a freakjob Libertarian, or especially one of those dark-skinned foreigners. Until they are forced to stand aside and watch them take their 8 year old child to a special little space to be patted down, they do not particularly care how inconvenienced or violated you are. They are "safe" and that's all that matters....

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  78. Two points by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    1. The First Amendment relies upon the next four. Any of these being diminished, the First is diminished. I'm not at all hopeful that the TSA will be required to honor any of these Constitutional protections, but hope springs eternal.

    2. Delta is not new to the customer disservice game. I haven't willingly flown them for 36 years, having been stranded in Boston too many times in the 70s. But this is a new low. I have no reason to believe the pilot acted outside of his authority, but his judgement is suspect in this matter. And that won't be a problem, since the arlines are stuck with the TSA, and play the game.

    Any bets if Arijit is on the no fly list?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  79. Arjit has advanced cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    His behavior might have something to do with the fact that he is being treated for stage IV colon cancer. He probably cares less than the average person what society's long-term opinion of him will be, and hopes that his behavior (and any reaction to it) could be a force for long-term improvement of the world.

  80. You're Flying, not going to McDonalds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My best experiences traveling have always been when I have dressed like a business man to fly. Nothing crazy - nice slacks, shirt, sport jacket. Be neat, well groomed. They'll treat you like you own the place. Being white and middle aged also helps, so try that out too.

  81. How was this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're quite sure something like this will happen if you decide to troll a government agency.... Do yourself a favor and just assume that you are indeed correct and that no matter the outcome, your t-shirt stunt will not change a damn thing. Want to really change things? Write/call/visit your state representatives in the House and Senate. Otherwise, stop being such a drama queen.

  82. This is nothing new by cvtan · · Score: 1

    Making certain jokes in the inspection line was illegal even before 9/11. I almost got the 3rd degree for making a joke about carrying a weapon when boarding a plane to Europe in 1972. So I was young and dumb. Afterwards, I saw the sign explaining how certain jokes were illegal. The concept of an illegal joke was new to me at the time. Now we've all become much more sophisticated.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  83. the OBVIOUS, which all true citizens should ignore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And then, he decided to drop any façade of fair treatment: the veil was lifted, this was about who I was and how I looked: “And he looks foreign.”

    Well, Buffalo is pretty close to Canada, so maybe he thought I looked Canadian. What does a Canadian look like anyway? Whatever it is, I’m sure that’s precisely what he was thinking. Certainly he wasn’t implying that dark-skinned people are not real Americans and that white people are the only true Americans. (I wonder what those who settled this land well before the arrival of Europeans would have to say about that.)"

  84. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    http://xkcd.com/651/

  85. Century of the Self by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    "Century of the Self" a good documentary which is only an intro to the selfishness of Americans and why they are so gullible and ignorant. From there you can find on your own why they are so unjustifiably confident and optimistic and how that increases failure (including wars.)

    FYI, I'm American but somehow I slipped bye being socialized into one of the herd.

    1. Re:Century of the Self by kenorland · · Score: 1

      And your basis for comparison is what exactly? Do you think Europeans are any smarter or less herd oriented?

      Sadly, for all its faults and increasing problems, the US is still a freer society than anywhere else in the world.

    2. Re:Century of the Self by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sadly, for all its faults and increasing problems, the US is still a freer society than anywhere else in the world.

      It depends on one's criteria. US is certainly not a freer society on all counts - its political system is pretty fucked up, for example, compared to any country with proportional representation. Depending on one's state of residence, it can also be considerably less free for various personal matters, such as sexual orientation (yes, being able to marry and enjoy the associated benefits is a freedom, too).

      Pretty much the only two items on which US is more free than any other country would be free speech (still not absolute, but stronger protection than anywhere else), and relaxed gun laws. And yes, the first item is very important, and the second one is moderately important, but there are other important things, too.

    3. Re:Century of the Self by kenorland · · Score: 1

      It depends on one's criteria. US is certainly not a freer society on all counts - its political system is pretty fucked up, for example, compared to any country with proportional representation.

      You mean systems so complicated that half the representatives are appointed by party committees? Systems so complicated that the supreme court of Germany just declared Germany's system to be unconstitutional? Systems that regularly put right and left wing extremists in power and allowed large parts of Europe to become fascist? Proportional representation sounds good in theory, but the US winner-take-all system has definite advantages in practice.

      Depending on one's state of residence, it can also be considerably less free for various personal matters, such as sexual orientation (yes, being able to marry and enjoy the associated benefits is a freedom, too).

      None of the big nations (UK, Germany, France) in Europe have gay marriage either.

      Pretty much the only two items on which US is more free than any other country

      That's a lousy comparison. The question is: overall, where do you have the most freedom and where does the political system work best overall, and for all its fault, the US is pretty much at the top there.

    4. Re:Century of the Self by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You mean systems so complicated that half the representatives are appointed by party committees? Systems so complicated that the supreme court of Germany just declared Germany's system to be unconstitutional?

      A proportional representation system does not have to be complicated. We're not talking Condorcet here.

      Can you specifically explain what's complicated about MMP, for example?

      ? Systems that regularly put right and left wing extremists in power and allowed large parts of Europe to become fascist?

      If a proportional system puts a large number of extremists in power, it's because the society actually supports those extremists to that degree. It sounds like you basically don't want democracy in general, on the oft change that people might elect extremists.

      Proportional representation sounds good in theory, but the US winner-take-all system has definite advantages in practice.

      Winner-take-all system has one glaring flaw that defeats all advantages that system could possibly have: it is simply not representative of the society as a whole. It's a classic two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, except that one of the wolves is a black sheep (but still votes for and with the wolves).

      None of the big nations (UK, Germany, France) in Europe have gay marriage either.

      Who said anything about "big nations"? And why restrict it to Europe? Is Canada a "big nation", for example?

      But, yes, UK, Germany and France are less free than Canada or Netherlands in that regard. Your point being?

      That's a lousy comparison. The question is: overall, where do you have the most freedom and where does the political system work best overall, and for all its fault, the US is pretty much at the top there.

      You cannot meaningfully talk about "most freedom" objectively, because it requires aggregating all those scores across the board on various issues, and their relative rankings are strictly subjective. What's more important, your right to freely speak and say things like "Jews are evil and must be slaughtered", or your right to get an abortion after your condom breaks?

      There are certainly many people in the world who disagree with your assessment that US is "most free", at least from their perspective. What makes their assessment invalid but yours valid?

    5. Re:Century of the Self by kenorland · · Score: 1

      One can meaningfully talk about a lot of things without mathematical scores or aggregation. You seem to think of all these issues of liberty and representation in terms of check lists and theories. But in reality, proportional representation systems produce government that's less representative than the US system; they produce party rule, career politicians, and political apathy. Nor do check-list items like "gay marriage" translate into more liberty: after you get married to your same-sex partner, society can (and does) go right back discriminating against you in many of these places.

    6. Re:Century of the Self by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      proportional representation systems produce government that's less representative than the US system; they produce party rule, career politicians, and political apathy.

      I can assure you that out of the countries that I lived in, US has by far the most party rule and career politicians. I don't know about political apathy; a lot of people here is riled up mad about "their" party, but then it's mostly over emotional things that are blown way out of proportion compared to genuinely important political differences.

      I also don't see any theoretical reasons as to why two-party system would produce more party rule or more career politicians than the other way around. In fact, if anything, I see the opposite - due to the highly predictable cycle of party on powers, being a career politician is very desirable, and comparatively easier than in a system where you can never be sure your party will be in power within, say, the next dozen years.

      Nor do check-list items like "gay marriage" translate into more liberty: after you get married to your same-sex partner, society can (and does) go right back discriminating against you in many of these places.

      It's certainly so, but it's still better than when discrimination is written into law itself, which is what happens when you don't have gay marriage or an equivalent. There are certain things, like taxation or right to visit, which are basically only accorded to officially recognized couples. When you refuse to recognize gay couples for those purposes, that's discrimination.

      Also, since you're considering societal discrimination as part of one's freedom, surely you realize that there's a great deal of that in US, as well - and on some topics (like gay marriage again, but also e.g. religion) it is in fact far more intense than in many other countries?

    7. Re:Century of the Self by kenorland · · Score: 1

      I can assure you that out of the countries that I lived in, US has by far the most party rule and career politician

      Europe's parliamentary systems are frequently organized around parties who groom their career politicians starting in high school and provide jobs for them as long as those politicians remain faithful to the party line. The equivalents of senators are often not elected at all. And the great majority of US representatives have had other careers and jobs outside politics and government, while the same is usually not true in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress

      It's certainly so, but it's still better than when discrimination is written into law itself, which is what happens when you don't have gay marriage or an equivalent. Also, since you're considering societal discrimination as part of one's freedom, surely you realize that there's a great deal of that in US, as well - and on some topics (like gay marriage again, but also e.g. religion) it is in fact far more intense than in many other countries?

      Maybe you get that impression if you hang out in Berlin or London, but large parts of Europe are full of xenophobic rednecks, just like large parts of the US. Unlike the US, in Europe, their views are often advanced by law and funded by taxes. For example, the homophobe-in-chief in the Vatican received decades of lush salaries for preaching his homophobia and insulting non-Christians paid for by all German taxpayers (straight and gay, Catholic or atheist).

    8. Re:Century of the Self by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Europe's parliamentary systems are frequently organized around parties who groom their career politicians starting in high school and provide jobs for them as long as those politicians remain faithful to the party line. The equivalents of senators are often not elected at all. And the great majority of US representatives have had other careers and jobs outside politics and government, while the same is usually not true in Europe

      I didn't say that I lived in Europe, did I? My list (limited to first world countries) consists of New Zealand, Canada and US.

      Anyway, what does this all have to do with first-past-the-post vs proportional representation? Your examples come from a specific overall political culture in a country, why would they be related to the way seats are filled in the parliament?

    9. Re:Century of the Self by kenorland · · Score: 1

      Anyway, what does this all have to do with first-past-the-post vs proportional representation?

      In a "proportional representation system", necessarily, you have very strong parties, because in the end, the only thing that can really be proportional to voting percentages is the number of candidates belonging to a party and they ultimately get to pick those. And the whole point of proportional representation is to represent all viewpoints in parliament, but 5-10% of the population just always seem to vote for extremist parties, either because they believe in them or because they don't know any better. So, proportional representation leads pretty much to European-style democracy, with extremists in parliaments, extremely strong "party discipline" (=politicians being puppets of their parties), and far more nebulous and devious horse trading than goes on in the US. The US system avoids these ills and still finds a reasonable compromise between the viewpoints represented in society.

    10. Re:Century of the Self by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In a "proportional representation system", necessarily, you have very strong parties, because in the end, the only thing that can really be proportional to voting percentages is the number of candidates belonging to a party and they ultimately get to pick those.

      That's not true in mixed member proportional, for example, where people also get to elect individual candidates from their districts. And, for that matter, first past the post in a strict party system also puts the party above the candidates. What you seem to be arguing against here is party-based systems in general, not the method of counting votes. However, this is not a good argument for FPTP, since even when you have many districts, each of which has a single winner, there are far better ways to determine said winner than FPTP - for example, IRV.

      And the whole point of proportional representation is to represent all viewpoints in parliament, but 5-10% of the population just always seem to vote for extremist parties, either because they believe in them or because they don't know any better.

      Sounds reasonable to me. Why do you want to shut up 5-10% of your population based on the claim that they're "extremist"? And even if truly so, at least when they have a legal avenue for pursuing their goals, they're more likely to pursue that as opposed to violence. It also tells you how much the society really is "extremist", rather than having a sudden rude awakening (see also: Tea Party).

      extremely strong "party discipline" (=politicians being puppets of their parties),

      This is completely orthogonal to the represenation system, and depends solely on whether MPs can (legally) be forced by their party to vote in a certain way, or not. There's no reason why a proportional system needs to require this.

      Then again, it's not at all clear why party discipline is a bad thing. If people vote for parties and their specific platforms, it's not unreasonable to expect MPs for those parties to actually represent that platform, with some safeguards in check. To represent themselves directly, you can have a separate upper house where every member comes from some district (and there you still use something sensible like IRV).

      The US system avoids these ills and still finds a reasonable compromise between the viewpoints represented in society.

      Well, I don't see that compromise working so well. As someone has noted, Democrats usually want higher taxes and higher spending, and Republicans usually want lower taxes and lower spending, so when they compromise you end up with lower taxes and higher spending. In the meantime, huge swaths of the population are effectively unrepresented because either party comes with too much garbage that's outright hostile to their needs, so they can't really choose either. The entire election process essentially becomes an exercise to elect the "lesser evil" - which can be plainly seen by watching American political ads.

    11. Re:Century of the Self by kenorland · · Score: 1

      That's not true in mixed member proportional, for example, where people also get to elect individual candidates from their districts.

      Although many members get voted on directly doesn't change the fact that the proportional representation system makes parties, not individuals, the primary unit of decision making. After all, even those directly elected candidates are counted against the quota for their party, and the party gets to decide who runs.

      Sounds reasonable to me. Why do you want to shut up 5-10% of your population based on the claim that they're "extremist"?

      The question is: do you sometimes want small political groups to be able to be the deciding factor in big decisions. Under a proportional system, small groups frequently manage to push through their agenda even against the will of the majority. Sometimes that's a good thing. But when the minority is a group of people that is hostile to democracy and freedom and it succeeds, then the entire system fails, as it has with regularity in Europe. Countries like Germany today "shut up" their extremists and have state security spy on their parliamentarians to ensure constitutional conduct because under a proportional system, that's all they can do: the system allows neo-Nazis and communists to get voted into parliament and they need to deal with it somehow.

      Under the US system, small political groups can participate in the political process and talk all they want, but they never succeed against the opinion and will of the majority; the only way you're going to get anything done is if you convince close to a majority of your fellow citizens that it's a good thing. That's frustrating both to extremists on the left and the right, to progressives as much as to Christian conservatives. It's why things like gay marriage and repeal of the death penalty take longer to pass in the US. But it's also why fascists and communists have not succeeded in US politics, whereas they have time and again killed democracies in Europe and elsewhere.

    12. Re:Century of the Self by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      You are only as intelligent in so far as your application of it. Just like US industrial junk food makes it's people unhealthy (among other bad things,) it has spread and infected the world to varying degrees. The psychology that has socially engineered our modern generations Americans has "practical" uses to unethical profit/power seekers elsewhere. It just grew the most quickly in the USA. I'm not saying it hasn't spread elsewhere; but more traditional societies will cling to aspects of their past culture for longer than the USA which doesn't have anything like the national identities of the Europeans.

      Anyhow, Americans choose to NOT think except when they are rationalizing their thoughtless actions to appease their ego's believe in their individualism and the cultures irrational extreme position on individualism--- such issues are never investigated it is as difficult as trying to argue religion. TV also makes your brain idle too low for too long while feeding you the natural drugs of escapism and I'm sure that makes people more stupid. Not permanently but willingly inactive. It is more clear if you have no TV and then come back after a decade.

      American culture is engineered to be addicted consumers; it was sold as necessary to prevent another depression following the end of WW2 because we had people who didn't consume and not enough demand to create the jobs needed in the transition from an agrarian society. Want and need are really different words but in this new culture the two are practically synonyms. Planned obsolescence is one practical aspect but another is the rise of Fashion in the culture; which is ideal because then your long-lasting products are just undesirable and the owner screws themselves over (and doesn't blame you for making junk - they themselves believe it became junk and its not your fault, it is just OLD.) In the past some twit who shallowly judged people by fashion was a bad characteristic, now it is acceptable (except in the extremes, but such judgements are relative and gradual changes if noticed seem harmless.)

    13. Re:Century of the Self by kenorland · · Score: 1

      You sound like a raving lunatic. Take off your tinfoil hat.

  86. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why do you want me to prove something I didn't claim? Why didn't you demand proof from the person who actually _did_ claim something?

  87. Re:Not quite by PhillC · · Score: 3, Informative

    How about if someone wore "I AM A FIRESTARTER" at a movie theater?

    They may just be a fan of The Prodigy.

    --
    Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
  88. Pathetic by fufufang · · Score: 1

    So is this America's message for people in other parts of the world who are protesting for their basic right of free expression?

    You guys seriously need to sort this out, otherwise the Chinese government is going to treat your freedom talks as laughing stocks.

  89. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    You say that like it's a bad thing.

    If there was a magic field that caused any explosives to detonate it would be a great security device. Basically impossible though. They just leave the bomb disassembled.

    You'd want a room with strong walls around it and no roof.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  90. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by dbIII · · Score: 1

    But on the plus side if they have trained law enforcement professionals doing the job not as many are required.
    The story going around is one "benefit" of the TSA with the low standards is that anyone with the right contacts can get right onto that gravy train as a manager, not be expected to have any sort of relevant experience and have subordinates that can't undermine you because they have less training and experience than the average security guard. It's not just a pointless show, it's also a way to funnel a lot of cash into the right wallets. The same goes for a lot of other branches of Homeland Security - don't expect to even find somebody good at judging horses in those high paying positions.

  91. Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes by hol · · Score: 1

    Really now, don't provoke "the man" unless you're willing to take it, and see it through to the end.

    It's like wearing an offensive shirt elsewhere and getting called on it. Man up, or suck it up.

    --
    - - - Non Caffeine Drink or Drink Error
  92. Just to state the obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TSA did not kcik him off the plane. It was the private company that did and it is within their rights to do so.

  93. Fuck major airlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got to fly a cheap, shitty airline. I was on an Allegiant Air flight and this woman across the isle from me flipped straight the fuck out at the Atlanta Intl. airport. Started screaming for her pills and went on about having vertigo. We had not even left the gate! She thought the plane tipped over, lol. Weak-minded individuals that haven't had enough drug experiences. If I could sit still in a seat and start flipping around in my own head, I'd pay for that shit. Anyway, they just made her assure the captain, a TSA guy, and a stewardess that she wouldn't flip out in the air. She assured them and that was the end of it. She did not flip out in the air. I told my wife (who was directly next to her across the isle) to just knock her out if she starts screaming again. We had a connecting flight to catch, and I wasn't going to miss it because of her stupid ass. Take a fucking train next time, I say.

  94. One sided story from a single news source by dywolf · · Score: 1

    At this time anyway.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  95. How much humiliation? by ecotax · · Score: 1

    Just how much humiliation is the general American public willing to tolerate in the name of 'security'?"

    Well, more than this, it seems. Poll: Americans Like the TSA.

    --
    "Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
  96. What did he expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I don't see the big deal. Yeah, Delta is being pretty retarded. But is it really necessary to mock TSA in the open when you're planning on flying somewhere? Not advocating violating people's freedoms, but the airport just isn't the place for this nonsense. If you wanna mock TSA, without it being a burden to your plans, go to the airport and stand around mocking them with your clothing when you're not actually planning on flying anywhere. Stand out on the curb with a big sign, or near the lines. If you're not flying anywhere, if they mess with you, you won't be so inconvenienced when they respond to your taunts.

    Taunting them and expecting them to let you actually proceed with your plans is pretty dumb. There's a time and place to protest and make fun of idiotic behavior of our government. When you want get on a plane, that's not the time.

    1. Re:What did he expect? by INeededALogin · · Score: 2

      But is it really necessary to mock TSA in the open...
      Taunting them and expecting them to let you actually proceed with your plans is pretty dumb. There's a time and place to protest and make fun of idiotic behavior of our government. When you want get on a plane, that's not the time.

      You fail to understand the point of protests. If you protest in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'... Nobody is really going to hear you. What the guy did is a form of Civil Disobedience. Nobody is suppose to protest the government security while going through the security. The herds are suppose to get in line and just take it. You should be applauding this guy for doing what you are too scared or too worried about missing a flight to do.

    2. Re:What did he expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I said before, do it when you're not actually wanting or expecting to fly to your destination. I'm all for civil disobedience, have at it. I do laud him for his action on that particular front.

      But to go whining "OMG I missed my flight, I had to rent a car and rent a hotel room because they messed with me." is just goofy. You exercise your right of civil disobedience, expect some inconvenience in return, cuz that's just how it works.

      I don't think people who go do those sit in things expect their day to turn out very well, they certain don't complain they missed dinner because the cops dragged them away because they refused to leave their sit in. That's where I'm just finding this all a bit silly. Make a stink, it's going to make your day difficult.

      Like how things are done or not, but when you expect to use those things in their current form, you're just going to have to suck it up and deal with it and play nice. If you want to make a stink, please do, just don't go whining it ruined your day (or your travel plans.)

    3. Re:What did he expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, wanted to add.. if people wanted to do some real TSA civil disobedience, why don't like a couple dozen of them wear that shirt and mill around an airport, maybe find some where annoying to everyone else to sit and obstruct. That'd be some decent civil disobedience. One guy wearing a goofy shirt, and expecting to fly somewhere, sorry, just looks a like a putz to me. And a whiny one since he actually expected to get somewhere and complained when he didn't.

  97. really a t shirt? by netskink · · Score: 0

    I thought the whole thing was lame. It was a t-shirt and it did not even have pron or obscenities on it. I am surpised that Delta made it worse by kicking him from the plane. Then again a rude stewardess on a business trip in the 90s made me never to travel on delta again. FWIW, once I was an executive platinum on AA and I flew my family of four for free to China with my airline points. I really used to travel a lot and Delta missed out on a lot of business with me because of a rude stewardess. I'm pretty easy going and tolerant and I don't remember what she did, but it was so bad that I swore I would never use them again and I have not.

  98. Doesn't Matter if We're Sick of It by mchappee · · Score: 1

    There is no politician that will ever get rid of the TSA because:

    A: It doesn't bother them.
    B: If an attack occurs, regardless of circumstances, they will be blamed.
    C: This would be exploited as "weakness" or "sympathetic" by their rivals.
    D: There is no downside for them to leave things as they are.

    MC

    --
    /. finds me to be 20% Troll, 80% Funny
    1. Re:Doesn't Matter if We're Sick of It by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      There is another aspect you haven't considered.

      Any insurance company that allowed an airline to continue to fly with full coverage for crashes, hijackings, etc. after 9/11 would just be irresponsible. There are very few irresponsible insurance companies. The airlines proved they could not handle the security screening so Somthing Had To Be Done. Result: TSA.

      You want to get rid of the TSA, the first thing you have to figure out is how the insurance companies get to continue to offer coverage to airlines. Anything that omits this is a non-starter. After you figure that out, you just might have a plan to get rid of the TSA.

      Remember, the airlines can't take it back because they proved they can't do the job. Nobody is going to allow them to resume security screenings. So somebody else has to do it. And so far, nobody has figured out a way that isn't a carbon-copy of the TSA.

  99. ZOMG! I have that shirt by cheshiremoe · · Score: 1

    From when WOOT Shirts were a new thing. I can't remember If I actually went through airport security with it on, but it sounds like something I would do. The security personnel at my air port never seem all that observant or bright, but I don't fit the profile.

  100. Old thinkgeek rm -rf /bin/laden shirt by INeededALogin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bought the shirt back in the post 9/11 days and accidentally wore it coming home on an international flight. I saw it as a patriotic shirt, but wife saw it and flipped out while we were at the airport. Got asked about the shirt by TSA, explained that it was technically a patriotic shirt and was good. An anti-TSA shirt is technically a patriotic shirt as well. Sad day:-(

  101. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes,

    only few countries that fly to the US actually have a TSA or anything like it. I boarded a plane in Tunisia carrying several 2l bottles of liquid, backpack, ...
    Only one metal scanner, nothing else, no checks or anything, no taking off shoes, ...
    (I flew to Brussels, home of NATOs headquarters among several other interesting places)

    Why would a terrorist board a plane IN the US? He wouldn't, the TSA is not their to protect against terrorists, it's not even their to protect.

  102. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by cffrost · · Score: 1

    Isreal actually trains thier security to look for suspicious behavior instead of assuming everyone is a suspect. Profiling doesn't neccessarily mean "assume all blacks/arabs/hispanics/whater are guilty." I can also mean "the suspicious looking guy might be guilty so lets go talk to him."

    I mentioned behavioral profiling (the details of which I am not very familiar with) in my second paragraph; perhaps you didn't see it?

    You will also notice that countries that are actually afraid of terrorist bombings don't have long lines outside security checkpoints because terrorists like to bomb the checkpoints. If you care about security you get everyone through the check point as quickly as possible.

    Yes. It makes me wonder if our government, through a plethora of distasteful, ineffective, and even harmful practices, in combination with a failure to implement at least some of Israel/El Al's cheaper/scalable practices, are intentionally leaving us vulnerable in order to implement additional authoritarian measures in response to future incidents.

    We just like harrassing innocent citizens.

    That much is clear. I know people like to bemoan those who "feel sorry for themselves," but I can't help but feel bad for how far we're falling as a nation.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  103. Except captains, they have the right by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 0

    This Arijit clearly presented himself as a provocateur and a trouble maker. What if he was going to cause a disturbance up in the air? Do you know how easy it is to cause a disaster? OPEN THE DOOR! It can be easily opened, if only someone is crazy enough. Wearing a t-shirt that says bite me to a dog convention, is pretty damned crazy.

    Pilots have the right to refuse ANYONE who they think is going to be a hazard to either themselves, they other passengers or the crew. Because once up in their, calling the cops is not an option. So they refuse people who are drunk, in bad health or belligerent. Don't like that? Start your own airline, good luck getting insurance with your policy of "we take EVERYONE".

    And it not just whether Arijit himself would cause trouble. I have seen another passenger punch a person who came in WAY to late right in the face for causing the delay. An aircraft is a very small confined space. people are already on edge at the best of times, taking someone on board who has no regard for anyone else (Arijit thought nothing of delaying over a hundred people for his temper tantrum) and expecting a smooth flight is a risk I would not take and I don't blame the pilot for not taking it.

    Little kids on Slashdot think the world should all go their way, not how the world works at all. You upset other people, they will upset you. And there are more of them then there are of you.

    Want to make a point? Be prepared to be hauled away. And this fucktard just protested because he was inconvenienced and is now whining about missing a flight. 3 girls in Russia are in jail for 2 years at least for protesting a dictator. Get your priorities straight slashdot.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Except captains, they have the right by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      You can't open the door in flight. The doors are constructed in such a way that air pressure from inside the plane pushes the door closed. Even at low altitudes, there's more than enough differential pressure to make it impossible for someone to open the door. Some pressurisation failures can even result in the crew not being able to open the door on the ground (if just a small amount of differential pressure remains), requiring a special procedure to depressurize the plane before the doors can be opened.

    2. Re:Except captains, they have the right by berashith · · Score: 1

      (Arijit thought nothing of delaying over a hundred people for his temper tantrum)

      what you say is true except for this. Any delay in security is the responsibility of the person being delayed. They wont hold the plane for you. The rules specifically state a recommendation to show up early as security may hold you up, and the only person responsible for the ticket holder getting to the plane is the ticket holder. If TSA feels like talking to you for just enough time for you to miss your flight, then you miss your flight and you should have shown up earlier or gotten along with the gestapo in a more timely fashion.

    3. Re:Except captains, they have the right by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Pilots have the right to refuse ANYONE who they think is going to be a hazard to either themselves, they other passengers or the crew.

      By this logic is I wear a Tshirt that says, "Vote Obama" the pilot can kick me off simply because he doesn't like the president.

          I think we should ALL start wearing Tshirts to the airport and challenging the pilots authority to remove us "because he doesn't like your shirt". They are SERVANTS of the customer, not the other way around. We wouldn't stand for this shit from a bus driver or train engineer or a Walmart store manager..... neither should we tolerate it from an airplane's blue collar driver.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:Except captains, they have the right by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yes, the pilot's power to kick you off is pretty much unlimited.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:Except captains, they have the right by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      To back this up, at altitude, there is a differential pressure of at least 4 pounds per square inch. Do you know how many square inches there are on an airplane door? A lot. A 2 X 6 foot door is 1728 square inches, and would take 6912 pounds of force to open.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:Except captains, they have the right by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wearing a t-shirt that says bite me to a dog convention, is pretty damned crazy.
      Only if the dogs can read. Unfortunately for us, Delta personnel can apparently read, and not only read, but can read things which are irrelevant to the safety and operation of the airplane.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  104. Can you kiddies say LAWSUIT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have but one thing to say LAWYER!!!!!! Thats a violation of free speech.

  105. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    I suspect that the TSA and homeland security would have more success with behaviour profiling, no matter the scalability issues, than all the profiling they currently waste their time on. Speaking as someone who takes up significant resources every time I visit the US for having the same extremely common name as someone who does not match my description in any other way.

  106. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    I was just in the UK and when I set off the metal detector I was patted down. Still not sure what set it off, but it's not only the US that pats down passengers, as I found out.

  107. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada does neither and has no hijackings, what's your point? We have a metal detector. Done. Well, we also have the retarded no-liquids thing, and no nail clippers or whatever stupid rules in there, but at least it goes quickly and generally without a fuss.

    As the infinitely-mentioned meme states, all problems have long since been solved since they threw a locked door between the passengers and the pilot.

  108. delta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I avoid delta like the plague. their customer service is abysmal.

  109. You do have the right to kick him out by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    A lot of Americans don't seem to understand their country. You only got freedom of speech protection from your government. NOT from your fellow citizens be they people or cooperations. See that church that celebrates dead soldiers AND in turn the bike riders who block them from view.

    Free speech does NOT mean everyone has to let you speak.

    Or else you let me into YOUR house to hold my speech in your face for 14 hours straight.

    If you can't even understand your own freedoms, how can you possibly hope to keep them?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  110. Enough Already by Crypto+Cavedweller · · Score: 0

    After 15 years of business travel related to Information Security, I took a personal time-out this year and have promised myself a year (minimum) where I do not get on a commercial airliner. I'd really love it if I could make that "never again," but we'll see. Mickey Mouse B.S. like this is a huge part of why I have wanted to do it for a long time. The 'security' industry built around fear today is a multibillion dollar boondoggle that buys us an infinitesimal increase in actual personal safety, and people just tamely accept it like cattle.

  111. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by v1 · · Score: 1

    no, I was serious. They're already doing this.

    http://imgur.com/gallery/jTtev

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  112. Here's My Question by MichaelJ · · Score: 1

    If you're a white male, and you were there, would you have offered this guy your shirt to wear, and then worn his shirt? Looked the pilot and Delta employees in the eye while you put it on?

    --

    Michael J.
    Root, God, what is difference?
  113. skilled labor by schlachter · · Score: 1

    I've flown into Israel several times. In a country where more than 75% of it's population looks (and is) middle eastern and more than 20% is Arab, most of their passenger facing security is behavioral profiling.

    They put you through a 5 minute interview asking basic questions and some random ones as well and watch how you respond. If you're inconsistent or edgy, you get bumped up into a longer interview. The reason this approach won't work in the US is that the Israeli system relies on their agents being smart and perceptive where as the US system relies on technology manned by absent minded TSA folk.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:skilled labor by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Thanks for posting; my knowledge of Israel's airline security isn't much more than I posted. If you're up to writing it, I'm curious about the interviews and would be very interested to read more about that from a passenger's first-hand experience. I'm guessing that the preliminary/extended interview model is employed to increase queue throughput... If you've ever been bumped up, how does the extended interview differ from the prelim? I also welcome any interesting anecdotes you'd care to share. :o)

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    2. Re:skilled labor by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I've only been through once with a large group, so I don't know if this is typical, but as others have posted, they generally ask you relatively simple questions in order to see how you respond. The agent asked me for my Hebrew name, which I've been asked for often enough that I could answer right away without even really thinking. The followup question was when was I given my Hebrew name, which took me a couple seconds to process just because it was so unexpected.

  114. You are wrong. Czech Republic groped me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are wrong.

    Czech Republic airport security groped me twice leaving. OTOH, it was a Delta flight to JFK, so they were probably following USA requirements. ;)

    Leaving Hong Kong, I was groped just outside the aircraft. I think they were looking for drugs. It was a UAL flight.

    Leaving Buenos Aires, security seemed lax, but I was amazed when my luggage arrived with me, unoppened. Going into and out of Argentina at the time, we expected things to be stolen from the checked luggage.

    Flying into Spain, I don't think they even x-rayed our luggage. Customs was handing a form and passport, nothing more.

    Japan has been nice - no lines that I recall on multiple trips there.

    Costa Rica - RUN for customs or you will be in line 3 hrs snaking through room after room after room. Maybe that has been fixed for aliens. It has been a few years.

    Arriving back in the USA, I've only had any issues once out of perhaps 50 times. It was coming from Canada. Sure, there were lines and delays, but customs has been professional towards me.

    JFK customs and security was odd. "say your name .... your full name" - seemed like he was looking for accents to me. Is that profiling? I have an ethinic name, but no accent.

  115. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope you're wearing a T that says "I'm a moron" so people can save themselves the effort of having to listen you.

  116. DELTA by jacerie · · Score: 1

    This is surprising? Gallagher informed everyone in the '80s that Delta was an acronym. "Don't even let them aboard!"

  117. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israel has ONE International airport. It's the size of New Jersey.

    El Al's security system just won't scale.

    Even if it did, you would see a big backlash in this country. Israeli security officers will detain you for any reason they feel like. For hours if they feel like. They are polite but essentially hostile. If you are of a Middle Eastern background (or even look like it) you WILL get questioned further than if you are lily white.

    I have real respect for them, they seem to know what they're doing, but horses for courses.

  118. Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Slashdot getting its news from RT? I mean seriously? Pravda not biased enough for you?

  119. Hello, My Name Is Inigo Montoya... by llamalad · · Score: 1

    I was in my seat on a plane, waiting to take off for NYC for a work event.

    Had settled in and was reading my kindle when the Jet Blue stewardess tapped me on the shoulder. "Nice shirt," she said.

    Thanks. It was a present from my brother.

    "Are you coming back from a conference?"

    Um... No. Flying out to one, in fact.

    "Can you take it off?"

    Uh... what? The shirt? Um... Of course I could. But... that'd be weird. I'm on a plane.

    "That's from a movie, right?"

    Yep.

    "I thought so. But can you take that sticker off of it?"

    No, it's not a sticker. It's silk-screened or something like that.

    "Some customers feel threatened by it."

    Uggggghhhhhh. Now it all makes sense.

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/9f70/

    So I say "Sure, no problem" and start to get up to get a spare shirt out of my carry on to change into.

    "Sir, the fasten seatbelt is lit!"

    Um, you just asked me to change my shirt.

    "You'll have to wait until we're in the air"

    Really? We hadn't even left the departure terminal.

    Time passes. Noise-cancelling headphones on, asleep, a tap on the shoulder. We're in the air and the seatbelt light is off.

    "You can change your shirt now"

    Having had time to think about it prior to dozing off, I'd decided this whole thing was ridiculous. "To whom on this plane do you report?"

    Had to repeat that a few times, and it was all downhill from there. I was nothing but polite and civil, whereas this raving stewardess was just about foaming at the mouth. On her side, it got pretty heated. Passengers around me were seemingly all incredulous; comments ranged from "this is ridiculous" to "it's not worth getting arrested over".

    With a heavy heart, I relented and said I was willing to change my shirt. I remained seated, though- she was blocking me from getting up as she continued to berate me for my fashion sense.

    Finally I pointed out that I couldn't get up as long as she was standing where she was. She moved, I got up to grab my bag from the overhead bin and, spare shirt in hand, headed toward the back of the plane to change in the bathroom. Whoa, nutcase was back there. Went to the restroom in the front of the plane instead.

    And who should I see up there? A new stewardess- one that doesn't look angry or insane!

    "Excuse me, may I trouble you for your opinion on something?"

    She readily agreed, so I described the situation. As I recounted the insane hassling about the shirt, the threats, etc, her jaw dropped. Her face went pale. People seated within earshot said things like "People need a sense of humor" and "This is completely absurd". She said "Sir, this is completely not a problem. You can just go back and have a seat, there's no problem at all." And then the maniac sprinted up to us and freaked out again. Sane stewardess roared her down.

    I went back to my seat and had the most uncomfortable flight of my life with the lunatic stewardess looming and glaring. Haven't flied JetBlue since and have in fact gone to great lengths to avoid flying at all.

  120. A Tiger-repellant rock? by DrYak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not saying I support the current system; I find it deplorable and refuse to fly, going on six years.

    Before the current policies (groping, irradiating, etc) began: What has been the rate of *successful* terrorist attacks over the previous 10 years? (I'm asking about actually successful attempts. I'm not talking about idiots who almost won a honorary darwin awards by setting their pant on fire, or got zerg-rushed by the rest of the passengers. Or the crazie raving lunatics who got encouraged by a cover agent who had to provide them the whole (fake) material and an actual plan, just so they would act out something [stupid] and get caught because otherwise they would have kept mumbling things and drooling alone)
    How does their annual death toll compare against victims of car accidents and victims of cardio-vascular diseases ? (To take the 2 leading causes of death in the developed world). Or even compared to victims struck by lightning (to take another example of dramatic and rare cause of death) ?

    My opinion is that such common sense analysis will prove that we aren't gaining much by all this theater appart from inconvenience, and that (no matter how much tragic and traumatic it has been for the victims of 9/11 and their families) the impact of terrorism is a very small and insignificant occasional bump in the statistics.

    It's as useful as the simpson's tiger repellant rock.

    We would gain much more by a "War on cars!!!!" and "War on burgers!!!!" than a "War on ter'rists!!!" But we still have to wait longer for those.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:A Tiger-repellant rock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We would gain much more by a "War on cars!!!!" and "War on burgers!!!!" than a "War on ter'rists!!!" But we still have to wait longer for those.

      You'd never have a war on cars, or a war on burgers. Those represent income opportunities, and those can't be oppressed. Freedom and rights? They can be.

    2. Re:A Tiger-repellant rock? by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 1

      What has been the rate of *successful* terrorist attacks over the previous 10 years? ... My opinion is that such common sense analysis will prove that we aren't gaining much by all this theater appart from inconvenience, and that (no matter how much tragic and traumatic it has been for the victims of 9/11 and their families) the impact of terrorism is a very small and insignificant occasional bump in the statistics.

      There is an analogous situation with regard to gun control: namely, there are at least two ways to evaluate risk: one is the way you suggest, statistically (and, in this case, "estimated years of life lost" would be a better measure than just "number of lives lost"). The other way is to estimate risk based on degree of emotional reaction, so high-profile events like an airplane crash (or even a well-publicized thwarted hypothetical attack) have disproportionate weight. In his book Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman mentions a study which found people were willing to pay MORE money for an insurance policy covering "death resulting from terrorism" than for a policy covering "death for any reason" (even though the second one includes the first). The proposed reason is that evaluating actual risk is hard; instead, people tended to base their estimate of value on how afraid they felt, and terrorism is more scary than just plain death.

      Doing statistics, even at a basic level, is hard and often counter-intuitive. Reacting emotionally is much easier and more natural. Good luck getting many people to do statistics, especially when their emotional reactions are much more useful to those who want to manipulate them.

      Besides, employing TSA people and buying security scanners are good for the economy, right?

  121. Time to plan an anti-TSA charter flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone grab your favorite TSA Mocking t-shirt, and let's fly...

    http://www.despair.com/tsatouching.html

    http://boingboing.net/2010/11/16/tsa-tee-we-get-to-to.html

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Funny-TSA-T-Shirt-If-You-Touch-My-Junk-Ill-Have-You-Arrested-Rude-Tee-/380429542286

    In Des Moines there's a t-shirt shop that sells one that shows two pictograms next to each other.
    One a common pic used to explain bad touch to children.
    The next one that uses the same pic, with the text saying "TSA Touch".

    Self explanatory.

  122. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by mjr167 · · Score: 1

    I mentioned behavioral profiling (the details of which I am not very familiar with) in my second paragraph; perhaps you didn't see it?

    That you did. Sorry. I failed reading comprehension.

  123. Charter a flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    call your local flying club or flight school.

    Most of them are hurting for students enough that their instructors are glad to take a charter flight.

    The plane is a lot slower, so the flight will take a couple hours more, but thats okay since you wont be wasting those hours in security.

    You'd be surprised at how expensive it isnt.

    Plus they can usually get you a LOT closer to your final destination.

  124. foolishness all round by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seems like they were foolish for thinking anyone who was a threat would so blatantly call attention to themselves, and more foolish for continuing to think so after screening. but he was foolish for needlessly drawing attention to himself, too.

    not that we live in a country where common sense prevails, alas

    1. Re:foolishness all round by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Criminals often do stupid things (especially in stressful situations, which hijacking a plan or planning a hijack is). I can easily see a terrorist putting on such a shirt reasoning that after all they don't know his plans so it's a private joke only he can get.

      Besides, if you ignore it on the grounds that it's too obvious for a terrorist to do, you've suddenly turned it into non-obvious just by ignoring it.

  125. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have a airport the size of New Jersey? Wow.

  126. take a picture and get the same reaction by Thorodin · · Score: 2

    Slightly OT, but if you think this is bad, just do a search on all the hassles people who like to take pictures go through. Legally, you can pretty much take a picture of anything with certain obvious exclusions (federal buildings, nuke plant interiors, etc). Yet, there are numerous occasions where a person taking a picture is harassed: threatened with physical harm*, arrest, seizure of the phone. *In a suburb of Grand Rapids, MI, a man was seen taking a picture of a water tower. Apparently, this tower had some interesting designs on it. Anyway, a few construction workers noticed and came over to him an demanded to know what in hell he was doing, where he was from, his name. The gentleman protested that he did not have to answer their questions and walked away to a diner. The men followed him there and then called the police. Police came, checked the man out and decided there was no cause for alarm or justification for them to do anything other than take his name down. The next day, after it was reported in the local news, the mayor of Wyoming, let me repeat that the MAYOR said those men had done nothing wrong. I don't know if the man ever sued but I would have. I would have sued those construction workers and thrown in the mayor as one condoning intimidation and possibly assault.

  127. Re:Not quite by sjames · · Score: 1

    How about if someone wore "I AM A FIRESTARTER" at a movie theater? Or how is that different than just plainly shouting "FIRE" at the theater? They're both within free speech rights, but neither explicitly says "there's a fire in this theater right at this moment."

    Simple, one is a pop-culture reference and the other is a clear attempt to create havoc by making a theater full of people believe their lives are in imminent danger.

  128. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think that we intentionally like harrassing innocent citizens. It's more a point of we have to make it look like we're doing something about the problem even if we don't really know exactly what to do. Profiling has sociopolitical implications on almost the same scale as having no security at all. So what we wind up with is security theater that doesn't really solve the problem, but makes everyone feel better while minimizing the ruffled feathers. It's what you get when you send gutless politicians to solve a problem.

  129. Sounds like Delta can't be trusted with my money by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

    The main thing I'm getting out of TFA has nothing to do with TSA or my country's increasingly high tolerance for tyranny.

    What I'm seeing here is strong evidence that Delta doesn't honor the tickets that they sell. Delta (not TSA) kicked him off, and for no even half-sensible reason, to the point that it almost sides like an excuse (did someone else happen to board and take the seat?). It was totally arbitrary.

    I don't happen to have any anti-TSA T-shirts, but I do own T-shirts, and some of them have words, and I have no fucking idea what some random employee might find offensive. ("Eek! Your shirt has the name of a metal band on it! That's the devil's music!") This time it was a comedic/mocking logo. It could also be for a competing logo (your shirt contains the word "southwest" and that's making me uncomfortable) or a political party, or the fact that you wore a T-shirt at all instead of something with buttons (yes, people who care about such things really do exist and I have no way of knowing whether or not Delta has hired one of them), or hair length, or a beard style, or skin color, or whatever.

    If it happened to this guy, it could happen to anyone. It could happen to me. And for no good reason.

    If you buy an airline ticket from Delta, the ticket might not "work," and not for reasons beyond anyone's control (e.g. weather) but some jerk's arbitrary whim, and you can't reasonably predict or prevent it. That sounds like an untrustworthy business. Hopefully this guy will at least have the sense to report the fraud to BBB.

    And hopefully Delta will be tripping over themselves to assure the public that the guy got paid back, with a lot of extra to cover his trouble and embarrassment, and do anything and everything they can to assure people their ticket sales business is not some kind of fly-by-night scam.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  130. Was it "legitmate" rape? by tekrat · · Score: 1

    After all, now there's a level of rape in this country that's acceptable, and maybe she didn't really reach that yet.

    Home of the free, Land of the brave?
    Wow, you guys sure are a funny bunch.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  131. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was the point of your post if not to point out the possibility that Israel's system is not preventing hijacking's?

  132. Build an intercontinental railway system by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

    That will fix the problem. What are you gonna do if someone hijacks a train? Make it go slower? You can't really steer it into anything.

    I'm sick of this whole airplane thing. It's a joke. It's way too expensive to fly, you have to go through shit like this, and it's just not worth it anymore.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  133. Hand Jobs by whitedsepdivine · · Score: 1

    So I had a similar experience. It was the first time I had to op-out. After the pat down, I tested positive for explosive residue. So I had to go to their second level pat down. At this point I was pretty frustrated, and started to belittle the TSA. When they open handed my junk, I said "Did you go to school to learn to give hand jobs like that?"

    Needless to say they were not very happy, but I passed their second level screening. Since they couldn't do anything more, they called AA's manager, who just came in and said "Your not flying with us today." and left.

    I went out bought another ticket with Continental, and talked to their manager about what happened. He expressed how he hated the TSA. Before my ticket was even confirmed with my agent. He gave me a pass to get through security without a ticket. I go through TSA wink and the officer who I made the comment to, and flew that same day.

    When I got to my destination, I went to AA's counter and asked for a refund, on my non-refundable ticket. She said the notes said "You failed TSA's screening." I said well I made it here didn't I? She called head quarters, and they gave me a full refund.

  134. Damned TSA copyright infringers! by macraig · · Score: 1

    Don't you guys get it? Clearly it was how he stole their TSA logo and put it on an unauthorized t-shirt that got him in trouble.

  135. Re:It isn't just the TSA.. its government in gener by bigt405 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but this has nothing to do with TSA. Delta wasted their time just as much as the rest of the passengers, including Arijit. I don't question the validity of your claim, though. Just seemingly unrelated to yell at the TSA when they weren't at fault here.

  136. His own damn fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pilot always gets the last say because he's responsible for the hundreds of lives on every flight he takes in the air. It doesn't even have to be about a terrorist. A pilot might kick someone just because he thinks they're mentally unstable and might cause an incident of another kind that would endager the flight. If I were the pilot and there was a bunch of TSA activity and commotion surrounding one of my passengers before boarding, I'd kick him too. I don't even want to know the details, or who's really right, or who's really at fault, or who's really a terrorist. Problem person -> go away, not worth the risk to everyone else. If you're not sane enough to just fucking blend in for half an hour and board a plane like a reasonable human being, then GTFO.

    I'm as tired of the security theater as the next guy, but, Arjit's a dumbass. If you want to protest the TSA situation, do it somewhere else. The airport guys (TSA, airlines, pilots) *do* have real threats to deal with, and thousands upon thousands of lives to protect every day. The current apparatus is the only one they have available to deal with the real situation, so they work with it. Planes are launching out of these airports minutes apart (or less, depending on the airport). It's a high volume, high risk situation.

    Wear your shirt downtown, or go to the TSA's business offices and protest them there. Don't be a dumbass and wear a provocative shirt about airline security to the airport and expect to make your flight.

  137. Great honey-pot for incompetent police/TSA/etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From Arijit's blog:

    Having been booted from our flight, the transit police now began to aggressively question us. At one point, I was asked where my brother lives (he was the one who gifted me the shirt). A bit surprised by the irrelevant question, I paused for a moment before answering.

    “You had to think about that one. How come?,” she asked. I explained he recently moved. “Where'd he move from?” “Michigan,” I respond. “Michigan, what's that?,” she says. At this point, the main TSA agent who'd questioned me earlier interjected: “He said ‘Michigan’.” Unable to withhold my snark, I responded with an eye-rolling sneer: “You've never heard of Michigan?”

    This response did not please her partner, a transit cop named Mark. Mark grabbed his walkie-talkie and alerted his supervisor and proceeded to request that he be granted permission to question me further in a private room. His justification?: “First he hesitated, then he gave a stupid answer.” Michigan, my friends, is a stupid answer. And then, he decided to drop any façade of fair treatment: the veil was lifted, this was about who I was and how I looked: “And he looks foreign.”

    Clearly Mark meant "this guy is annoying me" when he said "then he gave a stupid answer". Including that as a reason for asserting special authority over someone should be highly forbidden, carrying jail sentences in especially heinous circumstances (though I wouldn't call this especially heinous). The problem is that it is hard to prove because the kind of people who make asses out of themselves will usually also open themselves up to other kinds of bad things that can be used as a cover - if nothing else such things can be made up. What should really happen is that they should send undercover people in whose job it is to make an ass of themselves in a 100% legal and allowed way. At that point anyone who inappropriately uses their authority to interfere with them in an inappropriate way will be on the hook. For example getting into an interview in an innocent way, then proceed to mock the interviewer while giving completely innocent answers.

  138. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's more like wearing a t-shirt at a theater that says "Water sucks."

  139. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    Ben Gurion airport handles 12~13 million passengers per year
    JFK International* in New York handled ~47 million passengers last year.

    Atlanta International handled ~92 million passengers last year and they are #1 airport in the world.
    Naked racism aside, El Al's security methods are not trivial to scale up 5x.
    Especially not in old airports like JFK/Newark/LaGuardia which were built in the 30s/40s/50s and do not have space

    *Adding Newark and LaGuardia gives you #2 traffic in the world and the #1 most crowded airspace. /I don't include London's network of airports because they're very spread out compared to NY // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_city_airport_systems_by_passenger_traffic

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  140. +1 intelligent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First sensible post.

  141. Fuck Delta shirts by Nyder · · Score: 1

    If they didn't like TSA Sucks shirts, I'd go with Fuck Delta shirts next time.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  142. Taming the TSA by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    The TSA is a symptom of a government that recently realized the chains of checks and balances, of democratic feedback and public accountability, and of the constitution are off. It's a symptom not a disease. Whatever you do about the TSA you'll have an out-of-control government passing patriot act number 5.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  143. shirt.woot told him not to do it... by techpain · · Score: 1

    from http://shirt.woot.com/offers/threat-level-doctorow: Wear this shirt to: reassure your fellow citizens with a message of anxiety and suspicion. Don’t wear this shirt to: an airport security checkpoint, or anywhere near a secure federal installation.

  144. Write Delta a complaint too! by popsensation · · Score: 1

    I wrote a complaint to Delta suggesting their behavior was anti-american and disrespectful to our rights. There are already enough violation of our rights occurring on our way to the gate. Airlines, especially American born and bread, should have more respect for that. Use the online comment form or just mail it to corporate headquarters if you are against this behavior.

  145. Bomb the boats and feed the f--k-n flesh to the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fish

  146. interviews... by schlachter · · Score: 1

    I been asked:

    Where are you from?
    Are you Jewish? Did you have a bar mitzvah? On what date?
    Why are you coming to Israel?
    Where are you staying? For how long?
    Do you know anyone here? What are their names? How do you know them? Will you visit them?
    Do you speak foreign languages? Which ones? Can you say something for me?
    I see you've been to X country in your passport, what did you do there?
    What do you do? Once I had a drum with me and they asked if I could play something for them.

    They will sometimes get combative with you; I think it's part of the test to see how you respond.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:interviews... by heefeneet · · Score: 1

      What do you do? Once I had a drum with me and they asked if I could play something for them.

      Wow. I wonder what happens if you answer that one with "I'm a stripper".

      -- "Can you take something off for me?"

  147. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israel does horrible things to people that hijack airplanes. Their families, their friends... anyone involved...dead. That is why they don't have hijackings anymore.

  148. Simple reactive psychology says.... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    ...the TSA doesn't believe that they have the ability to control the problems at hand.

  149. Dear submitter by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1
    Headlines should not be more informative than TFS. Without the headline I'd have read this bit:

    due to the discomfort the shirt had caused

    and would have been left wondering what shirt was being discussed, and why it had caused discomfort.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  150. security theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May I present to you today a new form of security theatre: I put my hands onto the wifes cunt; my assistant feels the husbands cock, I squeeze the daughters ass and the touch sons balls - then we start on the baby...
    Jesus! What do do you call a service like that?
    The Security Aristocrats

  151. They told me by AntiBasic · · Score: 1

    They told me if I voted for McCain, we'd see companies refusing service to those who question the government... and they were right!

  152. Read the guy's blog by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    http://arijitvsdelta.blogspot.co.uk/

    He mentions on there that the shirt was designed by Cory Doctrow, and can be acquired here:
    http://shirt.woot.com/offers/threat-level-doctorow (it's currently sold out, though).

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  153. Respect? Question! by jeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's odd. In the America I grew up, on a military base surrounded by F-4 Phantom jets and armed men ridiculously overqualified to kill you, on the school on that base I was taught to QUESTION AUTHORITY, to HOLD AUTHORITY ACCOUNTABLE, that my father and his colleagues practiced the bloody art of mayehm to KEEP US FREE, not to kowtow to those in authority.

    I was taught that we routinely hold elections so we could hold elected officials, referred to as PUBLIC SERVANTS, accountable for their actions. I grew up among armed men in uniform who took me to national monuments and proudly declaimed that We the People were the source of authority, that men in uniform always, always, ALWAYS deferred to a civilian commander in chief.

    Reading your post sounds odd to someone raised by the sound of Phantom and Tomcat jets. Respecting authority for authority's sake was something we said the Commies and the Nazis did. :-) Americans were born free and bowed to no one. Give me Liberty or Give Me Death. Don't Tread on Me.

    Of course, I'm sorry. Reading your post, I assume you must come from some tragic country like Burma or North Korea where you have to bow and scrape just to get by. Please send our warmest regards and deepest repect to Aung San Suu Kyi, who knows more about what it means to be an American than you ever will.

    Hey, wait a minute. Cartman? Eric Cartman?! Is that you Cartman?

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:Respect? Question! by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Troll

      I never said you couldn't disagree with it or work to Change authority. However if you are pulled over or in the TSA line respect the fact the guy has authority over you. After you are out of his authority range you can do a lot to fix the problem.
      If you are in the military and a general comes, you salute him even if you hate his guts, and you don't give him the middle finger. Now if you have a legitimate problem with him you have sources to go to to complain. But there is a time and place for everything.
      Pissing off the TSA guy won't change actions. Working outside the TSA line has more effect.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Respect? Question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are ever so right, but you missed the moment when in the immortal words of Pogo: "We've met the enemy, and he is us!". We "won" the Cold War by becoming what we fought.

    3. Re:Respect? Question! by Mufasa_ooh_sayitagai · · Score: 2

      Thanks for writing that. As a veteran of similar age (based upon what you wrote), I appreciate that some still understand freedom, free will, and moral obligations. My oath as an enlisted man was to uphold the Constitution and follow the orders of those appointed over me. As an officer my oath dropped the "orders of those appointed over me" part. Something tells me that's intentional.

      I will always defend the Constitution as I have promised. At one time I did so with arms. I know do so with words, actions, and my vote.

      Remember: Make sure you've got your papers with you at all times. Do not forget your duty to obey, comrade. Cheese will be handed out next Tuesday. ..."Wolverines!!!!!!!"

  154. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Israeli security is a PITA for non-Jews. I will never go to Israel again, anyone I have business with can come visit me in a civilized country.

  155. anti TSA magic underwear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mormons have anti-TSA slogans on their magic underwear.

  156. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

    Also kind of ironic you guys have to read about these things on a Russian site. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  157. Didn't he miss an important appointment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it about time somebody sued those a-holes?

  158. True story by hey! · · Score: 2

    I was scheduled to fly from Boston to LA on 9/11, but cancelled the day before to go to a meeting at Oracle's office up in Nashua.

    With the mess I wasn't able to book a flight for my CA trip until the following week, and the security lines were unlike anything I'd ever seen. I was in the middle of a line well over a hundred passengers long, with my colleague Arun. A security guard strolled down the line, stopped at Arun and said, "Sir, you have been chosen for a random security check." "I'm with him," I said. "Do you want to do me too?" "That won't be necessary," the security guard said. Arun was a good sport about it, but they picked him out because he was the only brown person in the line. Isn't it kind of useless to pat down the brown suspect when his white companion gets a free pass?

    Anyhow I suspect the issue here is the same: flying while South Asian. If this were a white man it wouldn't have been an issue. We haven't come far from September 2001. Americans are still suspicious of people who look different. Sikhs still get grief because even after eleven years still we can't get it through our fat heads they aren't Muslims.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  159. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by icebraining · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that you can understand that there's a big difference between "pointing out that X is possible" and "claiming X is true".

  160. RT = Russian propaganda mouthpiece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should at least mention that RT is a Russian government funded entity that is pro Kremlin and anti-U.S. Their particular brand of shit stirring is to exacerbate ethnic tensions and point out how badly the U.S. is run and how Moscow is the beacon of justice.

  161. No sense of humor! by TheGatesofHell · · Score: 1

    I have the same shirt, bought it years ago from woot.com .... the shirt was a joke. http://shirt.woot.com/offers/threat-level-doctorow

  162. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I experienced in Israel was dedicated security lines/areas for a single flight.

    1) Domestic flight took me 90 minutes to clear once I got to the front of the line (About 2 hours total to clear security)
    2) International departing flight took me 4 hours to clear security from near the front of the line.

    The security was certainly comprehensive. It did include plenty of touching with a chemical pad, though not a full pat-down.

  163. Sheeple line up! by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    Yep, another reason I refuse to fly. It use to be in the USA, you were FREE to travel as you wish. But, now we have the TSA goons groping everyone, now they are checking trains, some bus lines etc. How long until on toll roads you are asked "I want to see your papers!" Until the American public fights back, the government will keep infringing upon your rights as an American citizen. Those that give up liberty, in the name of freedom, DESERVE NEITHER!

  164. Silly you indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silly you indeed. "Rule 1" applies to the government as relates to those inside USA territory (whether citizens or not). It has nothing to do with a private company or other people.

    1. Re:Silly you indeed. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you missed the part where multiple local and federal security guards were questioning him...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  165. Missing one point by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

    One thing: While they may refuse to let you on a flight, you have a legally binding contract with them (you should really read those plane tickets and the laws related to them sometime), and they are legally required to complete their contract. Either with them or on another carrier. There are situations in which they can break that, but none of those apply here. And in those cases they are required to cover the costs (including any reasonable hotel, restaurant and incidental costs) to make you whole and get you to your destination. So it's not analogous to a Starbucks. They can't just "kick you out". Also, if Star Buck had already taken your money, but not yet delivered your drinks and whatever else you purchased, thay can't just kick you out. They would have to:
    a) refund your money, or
    b) fulfill the contractual sale.

    But airlines can't just refund your money and leave you potentially stranded far from your home, or your destination. Unless you are on a no fly list, or for other legal reasons. They can refuse to allow you to board if not properly attired. But since he consented to change his shirt, they didn't have that for a reason. Too bad he didn't know his full rights, and make them put him on a competitors flight at their cost.

  166. Nope, not even close by jeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you are in the military and a general comes, you salute him even if you hate his guts, and you don't give him the middle finger.

    Nope. You absolutely don't salute Him. Unless he has personally done something that has earned your respect, you're never saluting him.

    You're saluting the uniform. You always, always, always salute the office, not the man. The office, again, is a function of the People of the United States, and a symbol of our highest ideals. That uniform is a walking implementation of the idea that "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." That's why it's worthy of a salute, because it carries an Idea, not just Power. That's why the Oath you swear when you pick up a gun is always to the Constitution, never a man.

    If all that uniform carries is Power, if the only thing a uniform has to offer is Force, then "it is [your] right, it is [your] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for [your] future security."

    It chills me to my bones to hear an American claim that a government official should be respected simply because he has brute force behind him. Whatever happened to "the Spirit of '76?"

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:Nope, not even close by Lucractius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People like yourself give me hope that one day I will be able to enjoy a visit to a USA that wont keep my prints on file permanently just cause i wasnt born in the country. People should be able to come to the, 'land of the free', 'home of the brave' and marvel at the things accomplished by one of the greatest nations in history. Not feel like they are entering a suspicious surveillance state where as a foreigner they will be measured, details filed permanently away 'just in case', and tracked with advanced dragnet digital surveillance systems looking for key words regardless of who they are, be it 6 year old girl from France, 30 year old man from Japan, or 80 year old woman from Iraq, all because the people are too afraid to accept the reality of life that it includes risks, that bad things happen, bombs go off, people die, and more of their people die of heart disease, cancer and crossing the street than they ever lost in a war anywhere or on any stupid ideological invisible enemy.

      Your Intelligent words have made me smile and reminded me why I grew up as a child admiring all the great things done by the USA and wanting to go see those places.

      --
      XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
    2. Re:Nope, not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. You absolutely don't salute Him. Unless he has personally done something that has earned your respect, you're never saluting him.
      You're saluting the uniform. You always, always, always salute the office, not the man.

      Really, you're going to be pedantic and hypocritical in your opening remarks? Because you'd be okay flipping the bird to the guy in the uniform with one hand as you salute the general's station with your other hand? Try that to any higher-ranked CO and see how well that works out for you.

      The point to QUESTION AUTHORITY is that you are NOT a robot or a simple tool that pulls the trigger for the people giving the orders. If you have a moral objection to an order, you are obligated to make your concerns known. However, making your concerns known does not have to happen immediately. You often will need to wait until the appropriate channels are available, so that you can properly and at an appropriate time HOLD AUTHORITY ACCOUNTABLE.

      You don't not salute the general OR the guy in the uniform because that's not questioning anything or holding anyone accountable. That's just expressing frustration in an inappropriate manner. You salute because it's a sign that you recognize authority. If you are a soldier and you don't salute a general, that general can make life very hard on you indeed, and you'd only have your own stupid-ass self to blame.

    3. Re:Nope, not even close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chills me to the bone everytime i look at american culture...every facet....jeez you people

    4. Re:Nope, not even close by Zhiar · · Score: 1

      When you point your middle finger to a general in uniform, you are pointing the middle finger to the uniform. When you point your middle finger to a general in civilian attire... that's another question. You only salute a general in uniform, because you're saluting the uniform and office. You don't salute a general in civilian (you're not required to). I'm not from America, but I think this would apply to armies throughout the world.

  167. Snif... But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The TSA isn't at fault on this one.

    BUT:
    TSA agents are tasked with making US citizen feel safe. It's a show.
    TSA agents are underpaid.
    TSA agents have a very stressful job. (ask any level1 help desk guy....)

    AND
    TSA agents have guns.
    TSA agents have more legal power than cops.

    Am I the only one to see something wrong here?

  168. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, that's not true. Having enjoyed the pleasure of both, I would rank Germany's groping procedures to be roughly on par with America's. Probably slightly worse, actually. Also, they're jerks about it. American TSA agents at least pretend to be nice.

  169. Get with the program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are being attacked. Defend yourself. Carry a device capable of recording audio, and preferable video, at all times and upload the interesting and unusual to the web. Once we have 10K of people's experience being sexually assaulted, assaulted, harassed, embarrassed and demeaned something will be done about it.

    They are only getting away with this because The Public doesn't know or doesn't care.

  170. Did you sleep through this part of bootcamp? by jeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you have a moral objection to an order, you are obligated to make your concerns known. However, making your concerns known does not have to happen immediately.

    Were you asleep that day? Does "Nuremburg" ring a bell? How about "My Lai?" If you have a moral objection to an order, you PUT YOUR DAMNED WEAPON DOWN! Your official scripted response is "I'm sorry, sir, but that is an unlawful order and I cannot follow it." The military makes it crystal clear that not only do you have a duty to refuse an unlawful order, but you will be prosecuted and punished if you follow that order and commit a crime. You absolutely do not "wait until later." You refuse that order right then, right there, or pay the price later for following it.

    Seriously, you can't tell the difference between saluting the office and saluting the man? It does have a touch of subtlety, I grant you. Were you an Aggie by any chance? :-)

     

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:Did you sleep through this part of bootcamp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civvy. I originally did want to say you're required to make the concerns known, but it's an area of military I'd be talking out of my ass for anyway.

      I know I'm not talking out of my ass when I say that it doesn't matter who's wearing the uniform or what it represents. You disrespect authority by not saluting when you're supposed to be saluting and you catch shit for it. You can ascribe all the symbolism you want to the action, but the general and your CO's don't care if you're only saluting the office when you flip the bird to their person at the same time. You'd be lucky to be given the chance to explain the difference, but if you know it then they know it, and they won't care when they're deciding how to punish you.

  171. We're trying, Lucratius, we're trying... by jeko · · Score: 1

    Bear with us, Lucratius. We're young, just over 200 years old. It seems every nation has its fits of insanity -- Germany/Japan 1930, France 1793, Spain 1480, etc..., and this seems to be ours. Most of us don't even remember our own core values of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, let alone the sister declaration of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité." I hold out hope that one day we will read the inscriptions chiseled into stone on our monuments and try to rediscover what they mean.

    We seem to have lost our courage as well as our heart. We tell ourselves that deciding to be craven bastards is merely being "realistic." We're so terrified we'll break even our own rules to bow down to anyone who will promise to keep us safe. We're so insecure that we attack even the idea of expertise, lest it make us feel even more inadequate.

    We follow people who exploit that fear to steal amounts of wealth so obscene it's a blasphemy against God. We're so afraid of the demands that God Almighty would place on us that we've decided to bow down before the idea that we're the only people God loves, and He loves us so much He no longer requires us to feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked or visit the imprisoned.

    It's bad, but we've been worse. We came through the Civil War with most of our ideals intact, though Lincoln did basically try to cancel civil rights for a time. We seem to be repeating the Great Depression, and the shoots and beginnings of a new "New Deal" are starting to show through the cracks. We may yet drag out and dust off the old Frank Capra, Audie Murphy, and Woodie Guthrie that can show us the way back to the light. We may yet find our courage, we may yet remember our heart.

    At the very least Lucratius, try to remember that some of us are trying.

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
  172. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by heefeneet · · Score: 1

    I was just in the UK and when I set off the metal detector I was patted down. Still not sure what set it off, but it's not only the US that pats down passengers, as I found out.

    Only because you set off the detector. That happens at every airport. What the US airports do is pat you down regardless.

  173. You Guys are Missing Something Important... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

    I was all set to agree with you guys completely, until I saw the shirt. It repeats the acronym ZOMG a half-dozen times. As someone who has never sent (and will never send) a text message my first thought was that ZOMG is a variant of ZOG, Zionist Occupation Government; which is the acronym neo-Nazis use whenever they're pissed that the Feds won't let them murder Jewish people. I googled it, and found it's harmless, solely because I couldn't figure out whether it meant Zionist Occupied Military Government or Zionist Occupation Military Government. To anybody a) knowledgeable about white supremacism and b) not knowledgeable about the new variant of OMG going around this shirt does not look like a joke the ZOMGs that are supposed make it more whimsical look like a threat.

    Don't get me wrong. I love the guy. Poopstrong's ability to get health insurance to actually cover his cancer treatment was great. And he probably wouldn't have been in trouble if his name had been John Freeman. But sometimes you just got to understand that humor does not translate generations, and making a joke old people won't get about blowing up a plane is not adult behavior.

  174. Good Bye America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how much extra time did it take to kick them off. And, last I checked, this is America - or what is left of it.

  175. very inappropriate!!! by jamesmar · · Score: 1

    You can't yell fire in a crowded building as a joke and you can't wear a inappropriate shirt onto a plane if you want to fly!

  176. RT = State Sponsored Propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, so there are morons working for our airlines and many of us have experienced travel issues associated with this. I find them and the TSA frustrating. Actually, I'm torn on who is more obnoxious from a travel inconvenience perspective at this point (seriously bad experiences with United)... and that is really saying something given how idiotic a lot of the security inspections are.

    However, what I am wondering is if people question the things they see posted on state sponsored media outlets like RT at all. Just like the US engages in propaganda overseas, other countries do too. They would be stupid not to, especially since the internet makes it so easy to reach people. There was a time in the US when people learned about this stuff in public schools and were told to think critically about propaganda. Unfortunately, with the erosion of public education, we don't see this anymore. This site seems to be a pretty transparently obvious anti-US propaganda site from Russia. Maybe they're sharing stories that will hold up to a little fact checking and maybe they're sharing stories that are biased, exaggerated, and cherry picked to convey the most negative view of the US possible, especially to US citizens. As their tagline says: Question More. It applies to their site and motivations as well.

  177. Poor Judgement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see an 18 year old college freshman pulling this kind of stunt, but not a 31 year old doctoral student.

    It's his own fault for testing the authority of the TSA and the airlines.

    Personally, I will not willingly fly commercially ever again because of the indignity of it all, but if circumstances dictated that I must, I would certainly keep my views to myself during the screening process.

    We live in a democratic republic and there are more effective ways to express one's opinions.

    Perhaps the student was not a citizen and did not fully understand our laws and system of government.

  178. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Israel has ONE International airport. It's the size of New Jersey.

    ... Given New Jersey is slightly larger than the Nation of Israel, this seems unlikely. Did you mean it's the size of Newark?

  179. Not Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Freedom of Speech" is NOT FREE. If people don't like what you're saying, you should expect to pay the price or shut up.

  180. Stories like this, people that behave like this by ToddInSF · · Score: 0

    distract from the very real issues.

    I hope this guy, who is clearly a douche, was inconvienced, didn't get a refund for the tickets, and got his ass kicked for royally screwing up everyone else's travel plans.

    Flying sucks bad enough nowadays without jerks like this making it an even more miserable experience.

  181. Had Enough Yet? by Somebody+is+Grar · · Score: 0

    If not, keep voting Democrat and Republican. They will find the limits to your tolerance eventually. If you want to be safe and stable, try a dictatorship. Oh wait, that's what we have. We just have multiple dictators.

    --
    Grar II
  182. riiiiiights. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so, two things. you are responsible for your actions and you must understand others rights in what you do on public transportation. freakin walk.

  183. I'd bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that TSA would have shit fit if somebody wore a shirt with Arabic words written on it. It could say "I Love TSA" but their inability to use proper judgement would hinder their ability to know that there was no threat.

    TSA needs to be abolished. It's a bullshit billion-dollar tax-supported organization that's a waste of time and money. Their primary purpose is to provide jobs to people that can't get normal mall-cop jobs.

  184. What do you expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem is that the people that run the country all fly private. Only us plebs have to fly commercial.

  185. Re:TSA screens rape victem, further traumatizing h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other hand I wouldn't entrust America to do profiling either. They would surely get it wrong, too.

  186. The real threat by cerniagigante · · Score: 1

    I presume this was nothing compared to what his wife did to him later.

  187. If it doesn't get any more obvious... by davydagger · · Score: 1

    Then being censored for doing nothing more than mocking suposed censorship. Thus proving its gone way to far.

    I also don't understand what a slogan on a t-shirt has to do with security. Its not a knife, a gun, a bomb. Words on a t-shirt don't jump up and kill anyone.

    I don't have to fly. So I don't, a pitty for anyone who does.