The TSA Theme Song

posted at 1:19 pm on November 18, 2010 by
[ Homeland Security ]   

The Serious Stuff

We’re doing two things wrong, and that’s why we’ve got this epidemic of junk-touching breaking out.

First, our airline security approach is to look for the bomb, when it should be to look for the terrorist.  Du-uh.  We’re not looking for the terrorist.  We’re looking for the bomb.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.  Any fool can hide the bomb.  If we start doing colorectal exams on airline passengers, the terrorists will just put the bombs in their stomachs.  The day’s not far off when just a pinch between your cheek and gum will be enough to blow an airliner out of the sky.  Hairspray applied two hours before the flight will be sufficient.  We can never keep up with the ingenuity of the terrorist.

That’s why we need to look for him or her, and that means profiling.  Profile early and often.  Profile, profile, profile ‘til we just can’t profile no more.  Granny heading for Christmas with the kids in Shreveport isn’t a threat.  25-year-old Mohammed from Yemen?  Give him the works.  How stupid can we be?

The other thing we’re doing wrong is thinking that we have to absorb all the pain of combating airline terrorism.  This attitude is flawed in general.  It’s easy to adopt, but a junk-touching epidemic is exactly what it leads to.  Maybe we’re finding out that there are things we’d rather do than endure increasingly intrusive personal inspections before we board airplanes.  Profiling is one, but staying on the offensive against terrorism and its sponsors overseas is another.

People have forgotten the extended debate, in the period 2001 to 2003, over how much to fight terror abroad so that we wouldn’t have to change our way of life to fight it at home.  For George W. Bush, the answer was to fight it abroad where feasible and necessary.  As little as we have the appetite for that, the impending junk-touching epidemic is about to set us a prioritization problem that we have postponed facing up to now.  It is going to change our way of life:  if we sit still for it, let our government treat us this way, we will have signed on to a precedent of serious government overreach that it will be very hard to reverse.  Government isn’t, in fact, our mother.  If we let it treat us like its children – like kindergartners being dressed by the teacher to go out on the playground, or supervised going to the potty – we will have only ourselves to blame.

The Semi-Serious Stuff

I would propose the following prioritized list of remedies for the situation we find ourselves in:

1.  Profile airline passengers and focus security inspection/investigation on those who meet more criteria than not.

2.  Maintain momentum in fighting both terrorism and Islamist extremism overseas.  Do not flag, do not lose steam, offer no “peace” to terrorists, and don’t give up on our fellow men.  None of them is fated by his nature or culture to live a short, miserable life hating “infidels” and then either blow himself up or be blown up.  Don’t give up on Iraqis.  Don’t give up on Afghans or Pakistanis.

3.  Do give up on the idea that there is any hope in accommodating sharia in our culture.  We can’t live side by side with it.  You can do as much sharia living as our law allows – but our law requires the public identification and equality before it of women, it excludes wife-beating and genital mutilation, it guarantees religious freedom, including the freedom to proselytize and to be agnostic or atheist, it tolerates homosexuality, it tolerates dissent, and it will not enforce your offense at dogs and pigs on your fellow citizens.  You come here, you live by our laws, and so do weWe don’t accommodate your sharia requirements, period.  Note:  this measure and #2 require a moral confidence a lot of people in the West lack today.  Don’t lack it.  Figure out how to not lack it, because your life depends on it.  This is actually the most important priority of all, but its long-term effect, while very real and practical, is less direct on airline travel than the concrete measure of profiling.

4.  Change air travel/security fundamentally. Have the airlines handle the routine, non-zapping/junk-touching security.  Assign them civil liability and let them decide who flies and who doesn’t.  Schedule separate flights for people who are eager, for security purposes, to be zapped or junk-touched every time they fly.  Naturally, it will cost less for the flights on which the passengers have not been zapped or junk-touched, because there will be less TSA screening involved.  The non-zapping/junk-touching flights will not be open to passengers meeting the criteria of measure #5 below.

5.  Exclude all Muslims and anyone who’s been in one or more of a list of terror-plagued countries (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc) – except on US government business – from flying internationally or in the US on commercial airlines.  Hey, they can still use charter services.

6.  …which people would be likely to do more and more.  Use charter services or learn to fly themselves.  Cease traveling by commercial air en masse. 

The TSA Theme Song

Most of you have heard the 1970s hit “Give up the Funk (Tear the Roof off the Sucker)” by the group Parliament.  How could you not have heard it?  Apparently Glee has recorded it. Some of us heard it in its original incarnation, and used to play it on an old-timey turntable on 45rpm vinyl.

There’s never been much point in really “knowing the lyrics” to this iconic single. That works out nicely for the TSA theme song.  Get a picture in your mind, now:  uniformed TSA employees, hanging around the scanning machines, supervisor with his or her little walkie-talkie, the Hollering TSA Announcer calling out rote instructions to long lines of travelers in their socks, slinging shoes and laptops into plastic bins.

Suddenly the TSA employees all break out in full boogie.

“Owww, WE touch your junk!  We gotta touch that junk!

Ooww-ww, WE touch your junk!  Gotta touch that junk!

Lala la la la la LA la

Doo oo oo doo doo doo doo doo…”

J.E. Dyer blogs at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions” and as The Optimistic Conservative.  She writes a weekly column for Patheos.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Gee, Dyer, but maybe trying to follow your program would harm the country and the constitution even more than not following it.

Your semi-seriousness calls for levels of government intrusion way beyond “skin-deep”

Your into Soul Sacrifice.

audiculous on November 18, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Your semi-seriousness calls for levels of government intrusion way beyond “skin-deep”

Your into Soul Sacrifice.

audiculous on November 18, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Nonsense. Make an argument here, if you have one.

J.E. Dyer on November 18, 2010 at 2:27 PM

you’re funking kidding, right?

5. Exclude all Muslims … …from flying internationally or in the US on commercial airlines

I’m supposed to have to advance a cogent argument against that debased kind of crud?

audiculous on November 18, 2010 at 2:34 PM

The “semi serious stuff” makes more practical sense than anything the feds have implemented to date.

Joe Mama on November 18, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Re: TSA Theme Song
And the passenger chorus is “Don’t touch my junk,Please don’t touch our junk.”

EliTheBean on November 18, 2010 at 2:53 PM

5. Exclude all Muslims … …from flying internationally or in the US on commercial airlines

I’m supposed to have to advance a cogent argument against that debased kind of crud?

audiculous on November 18, 2010 at 2:34 PM

No. You’re supposed to advance one against

5. Exclude all Muslims and anyone who’s been in one or more of a list of terror-plagued countries (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc) – except on US government business – from flying internationally or in the US on commercial airlines. Hey, they can still use charter services.

Shortening the length of the quoted post is unnecessary in a cut-and-paste environment. You’re just trying to make your case easier, and you can’t do that ’round here.

Excellent article as always, ma’am. Item three caught my eye, in particular the following passage:

Note: this measure and #2 require a moral confidence a lot of people in the West lack today. Don’t lack it. Figure out how to not lack it, because your life depends on it. This is actually the most important priority of all, but its long-term effect, while very real and practical, is less direct on airline travel than the concrete measure of profiling.

This is the key – how to bring boldness out in a people thriving on sheepishness. How to awaken the populace to the cold fact that our very existence is on the line, before the enemy makes us realize it all too clearly, as we stand weeping over another 9/11, or worse.

How?

KinleyArdal on November 18, 2010 at 3:02 PM

KinleyArdaI
I don’t need to add the conjunction to the part of 5) that i find most indefensible. The meaning of the part that i quoted is in no wary altered by the addition of the others to be excluded.

audiculous on November 18, 2010 at 3:15 PM

I don’t know, J.E. I like your modest proposal(s), but my older son is 6’3,” has red hair, green eyes, and a fair complexion, and during the several dozen flights he made between NY and St. Louis as an undergrad at WashU he was pulled aside every time for a detailed inspection. During that time, there wasn’t a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil. YOU do the math.

Howard Portnoy on November 18, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Bacon. We must eat lots of bacon and annoint ourselves with bacon fat.

disa on November 18, 2010 at 4:23 PM

you’re funking kidding, right?

5. Exclude all Muslims … …from flying internationally or in the US on commercial airlines

I’m supposed to have to advance a cogent argument against that debased kind of crud?

audiculous on November 18, 2010 at 2:34 PM

I think there should be a ban on tourist travel to countries labelled as sympathetic to terrorists (you know, like the USSR back in the old days), and holders of passports from those countries be refused entry. Muslim aliens should be banned from attending our universities. I think that Islam should be reclassified as a non-religion in this country since its belief system is a direct contradiction to the principles upon which this nation was founded. I think the mosques should be flattened.

No self-respecting Muslim should want to set foot on our soil.

disa on November 18, 2010 at 4:31 PM

I think the mosques should be flattened.

disa, they might then match the shape of your head thought-container.

audiculous on November 18, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Dear Dyer,

Let me get this straight. Do you stand by your #5 as written, as a suggestion that can be taken even “semi-seriously.” Or is this some semi-sort of a brainfart? Do you mean it or not? is it semi- amusing to you?

How about requiring all Muslims to sew a little crescent patch onto their clothes so they can be readily identified by all good Americans, Christians, and border guards?
How do you like that as a “semi-serious” suggestion? Do you find that such stuff semi-tickles your amusement center?

audiculous on November 18, 2010 at 6:07 PM

I can only suppose you have lost your mind, audiculous. If you put four priorities — which can’t even be executed to a conclusion in a single lifetime — ahead of a fifth one, it should be obvious to anyone sane that you’re not proposing to put #5 on a ballot or hand it over for execution to the FBI.

Consider this, however. There is obviously a priority higher than airline safety in our concept as currently executed. The priority is maintaining the political fiction that anyone other than Islamist extremists — who are a subgroup of “Muslims” — tries to blow planes out of the sky.

If that priority can be higher than airline safety, so can the priority of personal dignity for air travelers. It does no more practical good to junk-touch every passenger than it would to exclude all Muslims from flying. It is perfectly sensible to reject either measure as ineffective and inappropriate.

J.E. Dyer on November 18, 2010 at 6:48 PM

Don’t give up on Iraqis. Don’t give up on Afghans or Pakistanis.

5. Exclude all Muslims and anyone who’s been in one or more of a list of terror-plagued countries (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc) – except on US government business – from flying internationally or in the US on commercial airlines. Hey, they can still use charter services.

Do you not realize the absolutely gargantuan amount of cognitive dissonance it takes to make the above two statements, and in the same article?

Luka on November 18, 2010 at 7:07 PM

JED, say it plainly.

you’re writing for a site where crud like your semi-serious suggestions are usually offered entirely seriously and garner scads of approval from the truly dement readers, such as disa.

please, so it ain’t so, JED.

’cause, you devil-woman, you’re driving me crazy.

audiculous on November 18, 2010 at 7:12 PM

It ain’t so, audi. I don’t think it’s feasible, acceptable, or suitable to do #4 or #6 either. Which should be obvious. (Schedule separate flights with different security screening standards? How could I possibly be serious about that? Everybody stop flying? Ridiculous.) It’s a list of measures in descending order of FAS.

Not surprising, I guess, to see some commenters feel the need to pitch indignation fits on cue.

J.E. Dyer on November 18, 2010 at 7:48 PM

thank you, Dyer.

audiculous on November 18, 2010 at 8:25 PM

We need to knock some sense into judges. It’s not the profilers who violate the civil rights of those caught in the net, but the terrorists themselves who have besmirched the reputation of people whom they might claim to represent.

The terrorists are at war with us, whether we recognize it or not. Their actions are atrocities and war crimes, directed against the very system and idea of Western governance. Ordinary people have no problem blaming them for the suffering imposed to protect us. Why do the robed Solons on the bench have a hard time with it?

njcommuter on November 18, 2010 at 8:35 PM

…..and here I was figuring something more like this. (Possibly borderline NSFW)

cthulhu on November 18, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Everybody stop flying? Ridiculous.

J.E. Dyer on November 18, 2010 at 7:48 PM

And just why can’t we, or shouldn’t we, stop flying en masse? This is a question of nothing less than constitutional propriety — and when we question it, we get a “So what? Tough s**t!” for an answer! I would have no problem, morally or otherwise, with precipitating a collapse of the commercial air industry. If it were to ever happen, I’d place the blame quite squarely where it belongs: On the government.

gryphon202 on November 18, 2010 at 10:32 PM

cthulhu,

a big thumb’s up for that!

audiculous on November 18, 2010 at 11:28 PM

Think about this.

If, and an unlikely if at that, a majority of air travelers could stop flying for a brief period of time the airline lobby would kick into high gear in DC demanding some changes in security protocols, provided that the reduced revenues are obviously linked to the TSA’s behavior. The airlines could not suffer the monetary losses that they are only now beginning to recover from, post-9/11.

I am seriously considering cessation of flying. But then, I fly infrequently and have other means to conduct travel. This obviously wouldn’t work very well for many travelers. But like you said there’s no reason that has a good argument against it for not profiling. It becomes a matter of commitment on the part of airlines and law enforcement agencies to go with some common sense approach vs. the intrusive and nonsensical ‘remedy’ in play now.

Every critter on the planet profiles all day, every day. Why should any of us give up this natural self preservation technique in favor of being politically correct? Discuss amongst yourselves, as I continue profiling and surviving.

Robert17 on November 19, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Every critter on the planet profiles all day, every day. Why should any of us give up this natural self preservation technique in favor of being politically correct? Discuss amongst yourselves, as I continue profiling and surviving.

Robert17 on November 19, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Not profiling makes us feel better about ourselves, Robert — even as we PC our way into an early collective national grave.

gryphon202 on November 19, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Every critter on the planet profiles all day, every day. Why should any of us give up this natural self preservation technique…..

A fine natural preservation technique is that one male kills or drives off all the others and dominates the females.

Maybe there are good arguments for not following these natural techniques.
Think amongst yourselves.

audiculous on November 19, 2010 at 5:34 PM