On How Terrorists Make Shit Look Smart and WTF TSA? -- By Storyteller Knight

Guest post by Storyteller Knight

I was checking out Jim Hines’ (http://jimhines.livejournal.com/) blog today (as I do every morning because he is awesome).  Today’s entry consisted of a list of links on the new airport security rules and regulations and ruminations how it was basically tantamount to government sanctioned sexual assault.  I had been hearing buzzing about this for a while but after reading these links and other news stories, I’m seriously disturbed (my heart absolutely broke during the story of the rape victim to whom the choice of full body scanner or the invasive pat down was no choice at all—either option was a trigger).  And I’m really pissed that TSA officials admit to making these new pat downs as humiliating as possible in order to make people think twice about opting out of the full body scanner.  Jeez, people.  This is not okay.

Here’s a fact that I don’t think many people either consider or realize.  Terrorists are dumb.  No, seriously.  These guys make shit look intelligent.  Not to diminish the tragedy that was 9/11, but that wasn’t exactly the most innovative of attacks.  There were a lot of loop holes in FAA regulations- such as allowing blades less than 4 inches into airplane cabins.  Personally, I think were lucky that it took so long for a terrorist organization of any kind to realize that a- 4 inch blades could be carried onto an airplane or b- 4 inch blades can cause a lot of damage.  We went through what?  At least thirty years of air plane travel without anyone capitalizing on that rule?  Either we got really lucky or, as I firmly believe, terrorists are really dumb.

The shoe bomber (who still owes me five hours of my life back, thanks), the liquid bombers and the underwear bomber have done nothing to make me thing otherwise.  And that’s because they’re still so obsessed with blowing up airplanes.  WHY?  I don’t understand.  No, really, what is the point of continuing to try and blow up airplanes?  First off, with the new TSA regulations that grow tighter and more absurd with every terror plot (more on that later), it must be an absolute bitch to try and blow up an airplane.  Second, blowing up an airplane only knocks off about 400 people if it’s a really big plane.  That’s kinda... lame. 

And once again, not to dismiss the pain caused to anyone who hypothetically lost a family member in the hypothetical blown up airplane, but I’m simply not impressed by that plot anymore.  The point of terrorism, as far as I understand it, is to incite terror and create chaos within the infrastructure of whatever you’re attacking.  Blowing up airplanes doesn’t do that anymore.  The people who were terrorized by 9/11 aren’t flying anymore, and shoe, liquid and underwear bombs aren’t going to stop the people who are still flying.  And the infrastructure of flying isn’t going to fall apart if any airplane blows up midflight.  TSA will tighten down security, a new airplane will get built and we move on. 

To me, looking at this from a purely academic standpoint, the attacks on the London buses in 2005 and the Mumbai attacks in 2008 were more useful to the terrorist goals—the incited terror and the caused chaos within those infrastructures.  If I didn’t know that terrorists were dumb, I’d be seriously surprised that no attacks have occurred on American infrastructures yet.  And it’s not like they would even have to come up with the plans themselves.  Thrillers— books, movies, and TV shows run like terrorist tutorials.  The 24 hour news media loves to point out which of our institutions are totally vulnerable to terrorist attacks- ground transportation (cars, buses, subways) food (especially processing), water, schools, hospitals (as the pro-lifers prove time and time again), buildings of worship (and mailing bombs on airplanes are as totally unimpressive as blowing up airplanes—that’s like asking to be caught) and shopping centers.  Hell, if you want to stick with the air theme, blow up an airport.  You could kill thousands of people without ever having to pass through airport security (by the way, how funny is the warning to watch out for unattended baggage?  That totally does not take into account the suicide aspect of suicide bombings).

Which brings me to airport security.  You guys are making the terrorists look smart.  You’re so predictable it’s almost funny.  Someone tries to blow an airplane with a shoe, shoes have to come off.  Someone plots to blow up an airplane using liquids, liquids in containers larger than 4oz are no longer allowed through security (but empty containers larger than 4oz are, so we’ll see how long it takes to the terrorist to figure that one out).  Someone tries to blow up an airplane with his underwear, these virtual strip searches are mandated (which would not have detected the explosives in the underwear, but whatever).  And look, I get that it’s scary.  I was flying during two of those incidences (to Hawaii on the day of the attempted shoe bombing and home from Greece/Amsterdam the day the liquid bombing was supposed to occur).  But none of these restrictions are going to stop a smart terrorist from blowing up an airplane.  It’s barely stopping the dumb ones.  Because these full body scanners only show the surface of the body and not what’s in it, I fully expect in four years to being hearing breaking news on the Tampon Bomber, or the Butt Plug Bomber, or the I ate the Bomb Bomber.  So what happens then?  Will we require actual strip searches and endoscopic probes into the mouth, nose, ears, vagina and anus?  Don’t answer that.

The question is often asked about which plane would people get on if two were offered- one with the highest security possible and one with no security.  Um... I would actually get on the plane without any security.  No contest.  Because terrorists aren’t going to give a flying fuck about the plane without any security measures.  Because those of us on that airplane are showing them that despite all the terrorist attacks on airplanes, we’re still not afraid of them.  And if our airplane gets blown up, everyone will agree that we deserved it because we thought we’d be safe without security.  But if the plane with the highest level of security possible gets blown up, it sends the message that no matter how secure you think you are, we can still get to you.  That will make the news, that will send people into a panic and that’s why the dumb terrorist will go after the secure plane instead of the unsecure one. 

But I’m not advocate that we go back to no airport security.  I’m advocating for airport security that is actually secure instead of one that gives the façade of being secure without any actual security (as I pointed out, these invasive strip searches would not have stopped the underwear bomber).  Go back to metal detectors and x-ray machines.  Let me keep my shoes on.  Let me keep my liquids.  Stop spending so much god damn money on the screening process and spend more money on making sure a handful of air marshals are on every flight.  We’ve gotten to the point where we can no longer predict for/stop every possible threat from passing through check point security.  Now it’s time to make sure that if something bad does get through, people are in place to make sure that weapon or chemical or explosive can’t be used.    

Philosophy of Politics - Keeping to the Code.

Haha, it seems I'm getting lazy and letting Storyteller Knight take over for me with a multitude of guest posts. (Speaking of which, there will be another one coming up in a few hours... and I will be sharing my formal guest post policy, should anyone else want to submit something. I've actually had requests! Imagine that! By the way, if you're reading this, I do plan on emailing you back as soon as my ADD permits me!)

As previously mentioned, I've been busy with NaNoWriMo, and work, among other things, and I just have not gotten around to writing anything for this blog lately. So I thought now would be a good time to share some (very, very random, unpublished) thoughts regarding the Philosophy of Politics. (Yea, I know-- it's been a while, right?) Forgive me if this starts to sound too Cosmo. I was probably a little bit drunk. And there's totally a point to it... somewhere.

How do I put this... I was bored and wrote all of this up way back in September. I had been thinking back on on childhood fads and oral traditions passed on to us by the older girls on the playground...  So I thought we could examine the philosophy of politics and law from another angle... Keeping to the Code. Girl's Code, that is.

For example, most women are aware of an "unwritten" moral code by which we are supposed to conduct ourselves, in order to maintain peace within the Girl World. (The Code has been written down occasionally, but has always been considered oral tradition.) Rules may vary by region or age group, but the general message is the same. (Unlike the Rules of Dating, the Girls' Code is pretty concrete.) This sounds silly, and yes, to some extent it is, but believe me, it matters more than many realize. Men have a similar code as well. (I will be getting around to gender issues later...)

Girls' Code of Honor (and how it compares to the men)-
1. This is the most important (and most complicated) rule of them all -- You do NOT mess with the guy your friend likes, is dating, has recently dated, guys who have used her, etc. This includes hanging out (without the friend present), extensive conversations, etc. You do NOT hook up with a friend's ex. It is completely off limits-- unless it was a one-time hookup. After an extensive time period, for any of the above situations, you may ask your friend. If she says it's ok, you may consider it, but don't be surprised if it's weird afterwards. However, if she is not dating a guy and claims she doesn't like him [i.e. a guy she used to like] but he likes you, he is fair game.
To simplify this - if your friend has any sort of history with a guy, for the sake of your friendship, it's best to avoid getting involved with him unless she insists that she's ok with it (& even then, tread carefully). It's already complicated enough, and you would be hurting your friend in the process. Which means more to you, a guy or true friendship?
(Guys' code- an ex is an ex and therefore fair game any time.)

2. If you and your friend like the same guy, he is OFF LIMITS. If one person indicates she likes him before the other person does, then we refer to rule 1. If it is discovered at the same time, refer to rule 2. If guy asks for your number, and Rule 1 is in effect, you are required to "campaign" for your friend first. (Guys' code - whoever gets the girl wins, unless friend was first to admit he liked her, a.k.a. called dibs.)

3. Do NOT let your friends do stupid things while drunk. This includes hooking up with random, shady guys, table dancing, going home with shady guys, (Guys' code - "Feel free to make your own stupid mistakes. In fact, we'll encourage you.")

4. Do not choose a guy over your best friend. You should find equal time for both. Friendships come before relationships. (Guys' code - "Bros before hoes.") Friends should be understanding, but ample notice should be given before breaking off plans with your girls to hang out with your guy! Not cool.

5. Do not ever diss a friend's crush or boyfriend unless said guy has done something absolutely worthy of it (i.e. cheating, dumped friend). You may politely nod along if she says something about him being a jerk/asshole/bastard, but you CANNOT initiate such language. Upon a breakup, you are obligated to remind your friend that she deserves better. (Guys' code- If you don't like the girl your friend is dating, you should always tell him.)
6. Never insult your friend, but give honest advice (tastefully, of course) and don't share each other's secrets.
7. If you want to date a friend's brother (or other close relative), you must first ask your friend for permission.
8. A Girls' Night Out is for girls only- no inviting boyfriends.


As we can see, it begins with issues of ethics and social justice (and respect). It is all based very loosely on a "do unto others" type of morality, rather simplistic, yet favors a complex egalitarian system of ethics. (How would you feel if your best friend asked out someone she knew you really liked?) Girl code exists as a means of protection for (and from) each other. It's safer to follow the laws than it is to disobey, because of indirect consequences-- e.g. causing conflict between 2 female friends would lead to more harm than the direct consequences of table dancing while drunk. These laws are designed to minimize and avoid tension. Girls are socialized to use psychological means of warfare instead of displaying physical aggression. However, as we are also socialized to be in tune with our emotions (and openly display them), this type of battle has the potential to be more harmful. Aggression is internalized by both parties, and can lead to far more emotional scarring than physically fighting. Consequences can lead to bullying, exile, shunning/social rejection, etc.... and in many cases, suicide.

The men's code, however, is far more simplistic in that it literally advocates an "every man for himself" type of system. Interfere if you want to, but it's fair game.

So what does this have to do with politics in general? If you really need me to answer that, you weren't paying attention... But the point is that everything we do is politics, and politics are all philosophy in action. Without it, we might be a bit of a mess, but maybe not-- after all, these here are unofficial laws. Anarchy does not have to mean chaos. All animals & organisms, whether tiny ants or humans, create for themselves systems of acceptable behavior that can be either implicit or explicit, and self-government is not only entirely possible, but instinctual-- provided that all are in agreement with only engaging in "appropriate" behaviors... (And as we can see from our own society... that's kind of impossible right now.) It's not a matter of rulers and constitutions, etc, but one of conducting ourselves in a manner that is conducive to our survival as a species, and as a society. (Is it just me, or do I kind of sound like a textbook today? Sorry, must've been the tofu...) Differing opinions without regard for conducting oneself in a constructive manner leads to the sad sort of tribal warfare it seems our nation has been reduced to, at least as far as the MSM is concerned. Maybe one of these days the pathetic in-group/out-group dynamic will fizzle out when we realize that we're all the in-group this time around...

I'm a live and let live kinda girl, except when someone's hurting someone else. That's my code - do no harm. (Well, irreparable harm... Some things in life are unavoidable.) And at the base of most laws not tainted by one group's idea of morality, that seems to be the case. When we think about what the world used to be like, and how it is now, how is it that some universally "bad" behaviors survived while "good" behaviors were suppressed? Hurting others for convenience, vs. expressing & enjoying natural human behaviors. (Think  insurance companies vs. sex outside of marriage, and the argument that one is just the "free market" and "the American Way" and the other is "perversion" that means a person will spend all of eternity in unbearable agony. Yay.) In losing our instinctual roots and codes of behavior in favor of "religious values" and whatnot, we've suppressed our potential not only for equality and true passion for life, but for unequivocal peace. (Do not take my words as an attack on religion; I may not be fond of the subject, however that's not my point. Today.) We as humans know the difference between right and wrong without needing to be told. Children understand right and wrong at a very young age -- I should know, I've read at least 3/4 of the literature on morality for my senior thesis! At the age of 4, children can definitively identify what is "good" and what is "bad." We learn from our parents, from our teachers and friends, through word of mouth, not law. From how it feels, not from what a judge has decided. But as a result of some ideologies, especially those descendant from the Abrahamic religions, we have lost far more than what's been gained. Anyone not copulating within "wedlock" with a member of the opposite sex (provided you were both also socialized to follow the "correct" behaviors of your genders as well), became inferior and reviled; our bodies were covered up in shame of our natural beauty; our own rights to our own bodies were now the property of others; the substances we choose to put into or onto our bodies are now marks of inferiority and "sin," even though the vast majority of us cause less harm to others than those who condemn. I do have to wonder, if we were left to our own devices, to follow our own natural codes of law, what would our society have become? Would we still be fighting each other for equality? Would it be worse? Would ethnocentricity have had such a profound effect on history? (Need examples? Slavery; World Wars I & II... the Holocaust...)

What bothers me isn't that it probably wouldn't be much better, if we take into account the full history of slavery worldwide, and women's rights, etc, but that it isn't much better now. We are supposed to have evolved from those sorts of things. The Western World is supposed to be the most advanced in terms of rights, and law, and politics. Yet everywhere in the world, and within our own borders there is still some form of slavery, and women are still being subjugated, and anyone not exclusively in a heterosexual, monogamous, "married" relationship is still being punished, whether it's by bullying, or by denial of rights given to all others--  or by death, or tortured, or raped as a "corrective" measure. What is it that is inside of us that allows these things to happen? How did this become our idea of "justice?" More importantly, what the fuck is it inside of us that does these things to our fellow human beings? What is it that allows us to not care? Where has all the empathy gone? And somehow, it all leads back to politics...



Anyway, I suppose that was me rambling through things as usual. I need to get back to NaNo now. (But again, awesome guest posts to follow!)

A Whiny Young Democrat's Response to a Whiny Old Democrat-- By Storyteller Knight

The following is a response to "Letter to a whiny young Democrat" written by a Mr. Mark Morford, for SFGate.com.

(For pete’s sake, people.  It’s NaNo!  I have better things to do with my time than 1,000 word essays explaining to old people how young people think!)

Dear Mark Morford,

This isn't meant to be nasty and it's not my intention to start an argument with you (assuming you see it, which you probably won’t because you’re old and don’t frequent blogs.  Like how I’m young and don’t have an attention span beyond 140 characters).  I’m posting this over here because it feels weird to e-mail you 7 days after you posted your original article and I have no interest in getting an SFGate account so I can comment (I quite enjoy my next-to-nothing internet presence—see how bare it is?  I have to guest post on someone else’s blog).  I'm sure you've had a lot of angry people respond either in the comments or in e-mails giving you lists a mile long about why you're a ::insert creative insult here:: for ragging on the youth and not on the democratic party for making wet noodles look tough.  This is not one of those responses.  I respect your comments to us and for the most part agree.  We dropped the ball in this election.  There’s no arguing that fact.  But what I don't think you understand is that we actually don't care that we dropped the ball.

I voted in 2010, but I completely understand the mentality not to.  Because, to a lot of youth, all the candidates are actually the same.  Because we grew up in a different world than you did.  College is an insanely progressive landscape and each year it grows more so.  Each year brings in a class of students who grew up in a more diverse environment than the one before.  And then we exit college and enter the workforce and find ourselves in a world completely backwards of the one we grew up in.  It may seem to you that we're reaching for the moon with all this crazy, 22nd century progressive ideas.  But to us we're not.  To us this is normal.  

We know homosexuals deserve the rights and benefits of marriage.  We know that Muslims are people and deserve to be treated as such, not as terrorists.  We know that everyone deserves a chance at the American dream no matter what their economic background and shouldn't be labeled as lazy or worthless just because they weren't given the same chances, because they weren't afforded the same opportunities as those who have reached their dreams.  We know that we are on the verge of a catastrophic climate crisis and that waiting is no longer an option.  Note that these aren't things we believe in with the vague hope that we'll get there someday, maybe.  These are things we know, because that's how we grew up.  So when two candidates get up and one says 'no gay marriage' and the other says 'civil unions', what we hear is 'homosexuals are lesser citizens and undeserving of basic human rights' from both candidates.  When we hear 'no Ground Zero Mosque' from one candidate and 'maybe it would be smart to reconsider the location' from the other, what we hear from both is 'All Muslims are terrorist and can't be trusted to build a community center'.  When one party says 'tax cuts for the rich' and the other says 'maybe we can compromise on that point' we hear 'only the wealthy are deserving of the American dream'.  When one side says ‘climate change is a hoax’ and the other says ‘it will take 10 years to enact a comprehensive bill’, we hear ‘there is no evidence to suggest that we are out of time.’  Would you bother voting if both candidates were campaigning on the bases of a world you knew was wrong and unfair?

Voting for political candidates so very rarely changes the world for the better.  Grass roots organizing from the bottom up does so much more.  When the constituents raise their heads en mass and say 'no, this is wrong', I can guarantee you their representatives are going to agree with them, even if they originally campaigned that it was right.  Youth are well versed in working outside the political system to bring about change.  We don't care about the party and we don't care about the long view.  We care about doing what's right and clearly the way to get that done is to focus on building up from the bottom than to vote once every two years and then sit around on our thumbs waiting for politicians to change the law they already promised they weren't going to change.

We came out in droves in 2008 because Obama spoke to us.  He promised us that the law would reflect the world we had grown up in.  And since then, he has proven himself more interested in appeasing that weirder, dumber, backwards right.  If they are less interested in the world we grew up in than the republicans before them, why on earth should we believe compromising with them is a good idea?  Why should we support a party that has allowed the GOP to pull them backwards when they built their 2008 campaign on moving forwards?  For us, because of how we grew up and the way we see the world, the 2010 election proved not worth it. 

We don't want super!Jesus.  But we also don't want a president who is considered progressive by old world standards.  We want a president who is progressive by our standards.  We want a party with strong principles and beliefs that they stand up for and don’t back down from or concede when the other side puffs up its chest and calls them a mean name.  And if you think we’re whiny and selfish to remove ourselves from that system, that’s your prerogative and you are totally right that we lost the election for you.  Just realize that telling us ‘you should be grateful for the small changes that have already occurred, even though they don’t even come close to the world you grew up in, so get your ass over here and vote’ isn’t going to illicit any sort of response from us in 2012.  You only lose if you’re invested in the political system, and we’re not.    

As I said in my open letter to President Obama, if old democrats want our help in 2012 (and let’s face it, you need our help), you need to give us a reason to believe in the system.  We’re not interested in baby steps forward, because we’re already way ahead of you.  In a few short years, we will outnumber you and be able to vote down a gay marriage ban easily, with or without your system.  Our generation has proven time and time again that we don’t support the generalization of hate and/or fear and every generation that follows will continue prove this as well until acts of discrimination and bigotry are only propagated by a tiny, unwelcome minority.  We regularly volunteer and we take jobs to help others less fortunate than us.  And when no organization exists that focuses on the change we are looking for, we build it ourselves.  And we are building organic gardens, starting city bike programs, hosting the largest climate rallies in the history of climate change and doing everything else we can think of to educate about and mitigate the effects of climate change, because ten years from now is too late.

So if you want our vote in 2012, you had better take time to listen to us and consider that we have reasons for our actions beyond spite or laziness.  Youth activism isn’t dead, it just isn’t political.  Give a reason and we will put all that energy back into campaigning for democratic candidates again.  Because you’re right.  A lot can change in a few years.  But you’re not advocating for change.  You’re advocating for things to stay the same and for youth to get over it.  And that’s something we have no interest in doing.

tl;dr in < 140 characters: Why do the youth always have to compromise their ideals? Why can’t the old dying guys compromise for once instead?

~Storyteller Knight