Thursday, November 25, 2010

TSA Terror Molestation

It’s hard to imagine the current generation rubbing shoulders with the radical revolutionaries of 1776. The 76ers tarred, feathered and revolted against the high price of tea, where many of this generation not only defend the government’s right to grope your private parts and take pics of your naked body, they also think you should smile while they’re doing it.

Some people used to consider rape and child molestation to be a bad thing; today they think it’s completely normal if the government is doing it. Of course these same people would mock the idea of what the TSA does akin to rape or molestation. They suggest that “intent” is a distinguishing factor, but the actual physical acts are quite similar if not the same. Many men have spent years in prison for less intrusive physical acts that the TSA do daily … hourly … every second.

But some say it is necessary to protect us from terrorists who would kill us all if it weren’t for the TSA’s noble efforts which to date have foiled a total of one underwear bomber (at least that’s all I could find, I didn’t look very far.) To be fair, the arguments in favor of TSA are compelling. It is far riskier for underwear terrorists to commit their terror in the police state that is the airport. However, while the TSA’s efforts may be working to minimize terrorism, those efforts to prevent terrorism are arguably a form of terrorism themselves.

Those lacking an imagination may have a hard time seeing the TSA’s acts as terrorism. If you can’t see it, perhaps you are a mid-twenties, well endowed physically, circumcised athlete. For the rest of the world, understanding TSA terror is not that difficult. Men with man-boobs, women with no-boobs, uncircumcised men, hermaphrodites, etc. may feel reluctant about exposing their bodies to TSA naked photo shoots. In fact, the thought of doing so is likely terrifying to them. There’s that word, terrify, or terror.

Isn’t it possible that many people are more terrified of the much greater possibility of TSA terror, than they are of underwear-bomb terror? If so, the TSA has not only become the thing they supposedly exist to prevent, they’ve in fact surpassed it, if we consider the number of people they’ve terrorized.

For those of you who disagree with my assessment, I propose a compromise. I will agree with you that what is being done is necessary and acceptable, if you will agree to call it what it is, terrifying molestation. From now we will call body scans, porno scans. We will call pat downs, invasive private part rubbing. From this day forth we will stop calling it a necessary evil, in favor of TSA-dude getting his hourly jollies. Not fair? Are you suggesting it’s impossible to imagine some of these TSA folks enjoying what they do? Again, who’s being honest, and who’s being politically correct?

I believe my compromise is a reasonable one. For the few of us who, like the 76ers, value liberty over security, what the TSA (a government agency) does is the grossest violation of one of our most valued liberties, privacy. The least you advocate’s of TSA terror molestation can do is let us call it by what it is, without threatening us with even more terror for not being politically correct.

For you TSA terrorists, I ask the following. The least you can do for me, as you take pictures of my naked body, or rub my private parts, is look me in the eyes as you do it. The least you can do is let me call you by what you are, molesters. The least you can do is swallow every curse word I cast at you, as you rub my private parts. I will treat you as I would any molester who touched my body without my permission. I will curse you, your protectors, your advocates ‘til the day I die. And I will pray for the end of this generation of state lovers, and the return of the radical revolutionaries of 1776, who knew a good thing when they saw it. As one of the greatest of that generation said, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Friday, November 12, 2010

Premature Merging Bottleneck Syndrome

Anyone who has spent any time behind the steering wheel of an automobile has had the two-lane bottlenecking to one-lane because of roadside construction experience. You know, you’re driving down a two-lane road, suddenly up ahead you notice that cars are all beginning to merge over into one lane, even though the actual construction isn’t taking place until a mile up the road.

The merging of cars a mile ahead of the actual place where merging is mandatory is usually done in obedience to some unwritten, but well known rule. The rule says it’s rude to pass a long line of cars already merged into one lane by continuing to drive in the empty lane until you actually have to merge.

This rule creates what can only be described as a sort of epidemic of premature merging. It exists because the majority of humans (warning, stereotype ahead) are altruists, pacifists or just plain stupid.

Tell me you haven’t been a victim of this phenomenon, you see everyone merging prematurely and so you decide you too need to merge prematurely. Once you’ve merged prematurely, you curse anyone gutsy (or smart) enough to do the logical thing, continue driving until they actually have to merge.

You curse these people, unless you’re like me. I find late-mergers to be heroic. If everyone didn’t merge until they actually had to, that is, abandon premature merging, the inconvenience that is roadside construction would be much shorter-lived.

It’s really just common sense. Two lanes are better than one lane. Two lanes can accommodate more cars than one lane.

When a bottleneck does occur, the inconvenience created by that bottleneck is proportionate to the length of the bottleneck. If the bottleneck is ten feet long, it will inconvenience all of the vehicles involved in the bottleneck for ten feet of time, or until the one lane turns back into two lanes. However, if the bottleneck is twenty feet, or one hundred feet, or one million feet, it will inconvenience all of the vehicles involved in that bottleneck for the proportionate amount of time.

The more cars that merge prematurely, results in the greater the length of the bottleneck. Thus, each car that merges prematurely is extending the length of the bottleneck. Whereas every late-merger is reducing this length of bottleneck time, proportionate to the number of late-mergers there actually are.

It turns out that studies show that my reasoning is not only correct, but that late-merging is also safer than premature-merging.

Thus, late-mergers are all heroic, in the sense that they stand in defiance to the highly contagious epidemic that is premature merging bottleneck syndrome.