Orwell, eat your heart out: 'TSA denies having required a 95-year-old woman to remove diaper'Chris | InformationLiberationJun. 27, 2011 |
All-Indian Crew On Ship That Crashed Into Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Signs Executive Order to Punish 'Antisemitic Rhetoric' on College Campuses
RFK Jr Names Nicole Shanahan as VP Pick
Israel 'Admits It May Not Be Able to Destroy Hamas,' Blames America
Israeli Lawyer Who Pushed 'Hamas Mass Rapes' Hoax Accused of Scamming Donors
Orwell must be rolling in his grave. The TSA has just come out and stated they didn't require the 95-yr-old dying leukemia patient to remove her diaper. Instead, they told the woman they had to inspect it or else she couldn't board her plane, a requirement by any other name. Amazingly, CNN basically uncritically reports the TSA's bull and titles their article to give the passerby the impression they presented some sort of evidence to the contrary of the woman's claims, when instead all they did was attempt to redefine the term require. From CNN: TSA denies having required a 95-year-old woman to remove diaperSo we're supposed to believe that because they didn't explicitly order the woman to remove her diaper, but instead presented her with the ultimatum of 'remove it or she won't be allowed to fly,' that somehow changes everything. This woman is literally on her deathbed and these scumbags felt it "professional" and the procedure "proper" to demand she have her soiled undergarments inspected in order to fly to see her family before her death. This is the so-called "protection" the state provides us. I'm reminded of this quote from Albert Jay Nock: Once, I remember, I ran across the case of a boy who had been sentenced to prison, a poor, scared little brat, who had intended something no worse than mischief, and it turned out to be a crime. The judge said he disliked to sentence the lad; it seemed the wrong thing to do; but the law left him no option. I was struck by this. The judge, then, was doing something as an official that he would not dream of doing as a man; and he could do it without any sense of responsibility, or discomfort, simply because he was acting as an official and not as a man. On this principle of action, it seemed to me that one could commit almost any kind of crime without getting into trouble with one's conscience.- "Anarchist's Progress" in The American Mercury (1927); § III : To Abolish Crime or to Monopolize It? |