Celebrity Justice? Penn Jillette Called the Cops on the TSA for Inappropriate Touching
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]
Via The Blaze we get this 2002 account of how famous comedian/magician Penn Jilette did call the cops when the TSA touched near his junk. Things go very differently than they did for Mr. Tyner:
The supervisor says to the cop, ‘He’s free to go. We have no problem, you don’t have to be here.” Which shows me that the Feds are afraid of local. This is really cool. She says, “We have no trouble and he doesn’t want to miss his flight.”
I [Penn] say, “I can take an early morning flight or a private jet. ” The cop says, “If I have a citizen who is saying he was assaulted, you can’t just send me away.”
I tell the cop the story, in a very funny way. The cop, the voice of sanity says, “What’s wrong with you people? You can’t just grab a guy’s crank without his permission.” I tell him that my genitals weren’t grabbed and the cop says, “I don’t care, you can’t do that to people. That’s assault and battery in my book.”
He goes through the process of complaining, and after a couple of days, he gets hold of a woman in PR at the TSA:
It took some phone tag, but I finally got the [PR] woman on the phone. I was very cool and sweet. I explained the problem. “Do you allow your crotch to be grabbed without being asked?” I didn’t exaggerate, I said that there was nothing sexual, I wasn’t hurt, and it wasn’t my genitals. I just said it was wrong. She said “Well, your feedback is really important because most people are afraid of us.” She said, “I’d love to meet you so we could clear this up, and everyone wants to meet a celebrity.” She said she had watched the videotape and there was no sound, but she saw him reach around. She said she couldn’t tell me what was being done to him but . . . and I stopped her and said, she shouldn’t do anything wrong.
I said that I had talked to two lawyers and they said it was really a weird case because no one knows if he can be charged with assault and battery while working in that job. But I told her, that some of my lawyer friends really wanted to find out. She said, “Well, we’re very new to this job . . .” and I said, “Yeah, so we need these test cases to find out where you stand.”
She said, “Well, you know a LOT about this.” I said, “Well, it’s not really the right word, but freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I’ll spend to find out how to get people more of it.”
She said, “Well, the airport is very important to all of our incomes and we don’t want bad press. It’ll hurt everyone, but you have to do what you think is right. But, if you give me your itinerary every time you fly, I’ll be at the airport with you and we can make sure it’s very pleasant for you.”
I have no idea what this means, does it mean that they have a special area where all the friskers are topless showgirls, “We have nothing to hide, do you?” I have no idea. She pushes me for the next time I’m flying. I tell her I’m flying to Chicago around 2 on Sunday, if she wants to get that security guy there to sneer at me. She says, she’ll be there, and it’ll be very easy for me. I have no idea what this means.
You know, I think a few dirty movies have used this as a setup. All you would have to do is add a pizza boy. But joking aside, he asks the key question:
So, that was it. I’m flying on Sunday, I have no idea what will happen. How crazy is this? Do I really have some sort of mysterious VIP status to shut me up?
One is left suspecting that he got special treatment because he was a celebrity. So if a celebrity complains they want to keep him happy; but if a regular shlub complains, it’s investigation time?
And of course you might wonder why they picked Jillette out of line. Well, exclusive to Patterico, we have this video of how it happened. (Not really, but it’s a funny and appropriate clip anyways.)
Meanwhile, the issue has gotten the inevitable, but still hilarious Taiwanese animation treatment. Subtitles are provided, but you really don’t need them.
Actually though the video brings up one point I have been hearing tossed around recently. I always get irritated when people say that “the terrorists have won” over this kind of stuff. This is nothing more than projecting onto the terrorists your own causes. Bin Laden didn’t set 9-11 into motion in order to cause our security to increase. He did it because he is trying to spread his islamofascism everywhere. That is not to say there is nothing to criticize in relation to airport screening procedures. I am of two minds about the issue myself. But let’s cut that bull about pretending that Osama’s goal was to cause this, okay?
Oh, and maybe this is not the best time to get that atom bomb tattoo you have been considering. Just sayin’.
Update: Another random but appropriate movie clip, here.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Racist bigoted sexist misogynistic homophobic imperialist heteronormative jack booted fascist scum. Denounced. Denounced and condemned.
JD (c8c1d2) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:06 amThat was not his primary goal to be sure but the definition of terrorism is to make people afraid. And the TSA measures reflects just how much that fear has been raised. No one wants to be in charge if and when another terrorist act occurs so they got to ridiculous and ineffective measures that have had little real impact on stopping the next terrorist attack.
VOR2 (8e6b90) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:09 amI don’t think that most Americans really expect a “guarantee” no attack will ever happen again but the government agencies are acting as if they can guarantee one won’t. That is the disconnect.
Israel is the example I think people should be looking at in terms of understanding and living with the risk.
Awesome.
The emphasis on airports seems to be very much a case of “fighting the last battle” rather than preventing the next. Maybe the INS should get a copy of “The Art of War” for Christmas?
carlitos (f21c51) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:16 amcarlitos!!!
Patterico (c218bd) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:18 amPatterico
Thanks for the video assists.
That Penn and Teller bit is one of the few genuinely funny moments in that movie.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:27 amHang Osama and what he wants or what he has won.
The scan/ grab screening procedures make us LESS safe, and permit the government too much personal invasion of unsuspected persons. It diverts resources from more effective alternatives, and creates opportunities for diversion and distraction that terrorists can exploit.
There is also the unhappy side effect of feeding an incompetent federal bureaucracy; though obviously reduced safety is the primary reason these measures should end. THere are over 3000 administrators of the TSA in the DC area alone making over 100,000 dollars a year. The scanner purchases involve the usual crony enrichment corruption.
I don’t see why anyone is standing for it. You shouldn’t be “of two minds”; pardon the emphatic nature of my criticism, but it is foolish and credulous of you to think this has made you more secure.
SarahW (af7312) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:28 amApologies for my extended absence. Re-education camp has been brutal.
carlitos (f21c51) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:31 amCarlitos
> Re-education camp has been brutal.
Can’t be as bad as when Michael Moore went to fat camp.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:36 amI had forgotten all about Rip Torn being in that movie – still the best deadpan actor ever.
Dmac (498ece) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:38 amEven the Obama Administration knows how much this is hurting them but they’re still pushing for more invasive screenings. It makes me think there are specific new security concerns, perhaps related to the group behind the underwear bomber. If so, that’s the real story and what the media should be asking about.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:40 amDRJ, you are as always kind…even to your opponents.
As for your comment:
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:48 amI don’t know how kind it is. We’re 10 years out from 9/11 and still dealing with airport security.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:49 amWell, that is beyond doubt a rather ludicrously ridiculous statement right on the surface.
His primary purpose WAS to spread Islamofascism, sure — but a large part of the underlying mechanism — its secondary purpose — which is intended to occur is to disrupt the alternatives to the point where they become just as intolerable and unacceptable.
So in this regard, yes, there has been massive success in the actions of 911 — the entire air-security system has become, by all accounts, a major nightmare and the additional burdens put in place to deal with the possibility of such events is far beyond the actual threat imposed by true terrorism.
Further, the efforts by the various federal governments, while moderately successful, have been mostly inherently wrongheaded — they attack the symptom and not the inherent problem they should be dealing with, namely the possibility of using planes as human-guided missiles. Again, certainly within the secondary bounds of Bin Laden’s goals.
As an inversion, this is kind of like saying that Alinsky’s intention to destroy the society by setting impossible goals for it isn’t the reason why Obama&co are passing ridiculous spending mandates and vastly increasing the overall government intrusion into every aspect of our lives.
Granted, one could argue, quite naively, that the former is not Obama&co’s goals based only on a surface review of his openly expressed intentions, I’d say that, given the connection between Alinsky etal for the current Dem Power Elite via both Obama to Ayres/Dohrn and Hillary directly to Alinsky, to believe otherwise is flat out ludicrous.
To focus only on one openly voiced aspect of things and ignore other inherently related aspects that certainly tie into, support, and affect the achievement of the goals is a rather blatantly faulty reasoning method.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:51 amigot
> His primary purpose WAS to spread Islamofascism, sure — but a large part of the underlying mechanism — its secondary purpose — which is intended to occur is to disrupt the alternatives to the point where they become just as intolerable and unacceptable.
so bin laden’s plans was… make airport security so horrible we decide to follow mohammed?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:56 ambtw, care to cite anything he said to prove this?
more on letting the airlines handle it v. TSA:
“TSA’s ‘Naked Scanners’ problem isn’t new”
AD-RtR/OS! (68ed01) — 11/17/2010 @ 7:58 amhttp://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Henry-W-Meers-Jr-TSAs-Naked-Scanners-problem-isnt-new–108466804.html
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/committees/american-science-and-engineering-inc-pac.asp?cycle=10
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/committees/osi-systems-inc-pac-osi-pac.asp?cycle=08
list the people that the companies donated to. Both of these machines are in use at the airports. I could not find a page for Tek84, the third company.
VOR2 (c9795e) — 11/17/2010 @ 8:06 amAlways appropriate during times like these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRpWnK6Rg3E
carlitos (f21c51) — 11/17/2010 @ 8:18 amYou guys cannot imagine or even comprehend how cool carlitos’ new Fu Manchu stache is.
JD (560680) — 11/17/2010 @ 8:19 amI find it hard to get worked up over this. Though the don’t touch my junk thing made me laugh.
JD (560680) — 11/17/2010 @ 8:21 amTaiwanese animation….
Well, the bright side is that the airlines will make blankets available again.
AD-RtR/OS! (68ed01) — 11/17/2010 @ 8:31 amI thought blankets were still a no no, because of the pig or cow or chicken or duck flu.
JD (560680) — 11/17/2010 @ 8:33 amTSA. Air travel. A free country.
Pick any two.
Kevin M (298030) — 11/17/2010 @ 8:56 amBTW, an interesting question: Is the risk of dying from cancer from a mild back-scatter x-ray higher than the risk of being killed by a terrorist without these scans? If so, then the terrorists have indeed won.
Kevin M (298030) — 11/17/2010 @ 8:59 amI hate to say this, it makes me hurl a little bit in the back of my mouth, but I agree, kind of, with what that idiot Napolitano said. If you don’t like it you can drive, take the bus, take the train, take a burro, boat, hang glide’ hot air balloon, bike, walk … I travel all the time, and this simply does not bother me.
JD (560680) — 11/17/2010 @ 9:08 amApparently there is a new threat, possibly targeting the end of November, and the Germans have also increased security at airports and railway stations.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 11/17/2010 @ 9:15 amhttp://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/george-soros-michael-chertoff-profiting-off-controversial-new-tsa-scanners-108194724.html
Chertoff and Soros connected companies. Contract approved 4 days after underwear bomber incident. No further underwear incidents since then but 350M of tax dollars to fight the threat….
VOR2 (c9795e) — 11/17/2010 @ 9:55 amThe difficulty JD, is that they are talking of putting these scanners in the subway and even on the street.
You should be bothered, because the measures make air travel more dangerous. They are easily thwarted by anyone who cares to, they misdirect resources from efforts that WOULD increase security, and create opportunities for distraction that a terrorist can exploit.
Moreover, the staff is abusing the process and deliberately humilitating people who opt out of the scans, to make others opt in,
The ionizing radiation is not as safe as advertised, nor necessarily at the advertised dose, the latter affirmed by John Hopkins, by the same source the TSA cites as approving the machines.
Calibration errors resulting in improper radiation dose are a problem even in institutions where safety is a priority and staff is highly trained. At the TSA opportunity to bungle the set up and maintenance of the machines, and administer the dose are plentiful. Moreover, a larger dose can be deliberately set for greater detail.
So just you count on the machines operating as advertised.
Even if they do, there are hot spots and leaks in certain areas of the machine and the surrounding error which the TSA has glossed over, that do up the dose.
You should refuse, and no one except those under actual suspicion should be forced to comply with a grope of their genitals, but be allowed to leave without penalty.
An exam tolerable in one place by one set of persons may seem ill advised at another.
Women are particularly vulnerable and there are anecdotes, on a first person account of an airline pilot traveling with his 17 year old daughter who because of that, encountered the “hoi polloi” screening process he usually circumvents (not the process, ther persons: pilots have their own screeners) THey selected her and one announced on his headset to the scanner opperator that he “had a cutie for him”.
Paired with stories of individuals who have figured out how to game the system ( stand in line between the “hottest” girls in the line) noting that attractive women are invariably selected when present, that account is alarming.
One woman has filed a lawsuit for having her blouse pulled down in public view, her breasts exposed, while TSA agents laught and joked about it, during and after the exposure, one even saying he would have to go to the video to watch it.
The images can be and have been stored – and it is easy enough for anyone with access to capture the images with a discreet camera. A simple color inversion creates a detailed image of the human from that is somewhat more intelligible (as positive and negative are reversed) than TSA would have the traveling public believe….
Iff any of these measures made us safer that might be one thing. The opposite is true, however, and it is at great cost to privacy and dignity of travelers, and our freedom, while unsuspected, to move about and travel freely. It’s only going to get worse unless it is nipped in the bud now.
SarahW (af7312) — 11/17/2010 @ 10:16 amI like:
TSA: Touching Sensitive Areas
Security theater at its worst this crap is. But when the government doesn’t want to deal with the real problem due to pc and multiculti concerns the libs have made pre-eminent, they have to be seen to be doing SOMETHING. Here it is.
I think they could make a significant percentage of the complaints go away with some smart management, however…
Hire only attractive labor and allow the traveller to choose who does the patting.
Dan S (6c3988) — 11/17/2010 @ 10:20 amI still think having them eat a ham sandwich and spit on the Q’uran is an option. And it would probably work as well as a screening approach.
Offensive? Certainly. Unlike what is currently going on?
I know that JD has a point. But so does SarahW. I would like to see a “zero tolerance” policy for TSA misbehavior, in addition.
That being said, I don’t travel as much as JD, and I haven’t been through one of the backscatter devices yet. But I have been singled out for personal attention twice (each time when I changed my ticket). The TSA folks were absolutely polite and professional. But then, they weren’t patting me down, either.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/17/2010 @ 10:27 amIf you don’t like it you can drive
And, the win-win is that there are no metal detectors at freeway on-ramps, just make sure that “farming implement” that you’re travelling with is stored according to applicable ordinances, and you have your CCW card handy (it helps to restrict travel to those States that recognize your permit).
AD-RtR/OS! (68ed01) — 11/17/2010 @ 10:30 amRafi Sela: “I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747.” http://tiny.cc/lhxqh
SarahW (af7312) — 11/17/2010 @ 10:33 amThis whole thing reminds me of the Democrats worrying about the Patriot Act…I feel as if a lot of it is political.
My family lives in a different state and over the years I have often flown home. I have watched the security change and get tighter and in general flying has become a lot more of a pain in the ass.
The last time I flew was just about 3 weeks ago. I left out of Indpls and went through the body scanner there. I was patted down as well, and they used a wand and I had to go through the metal detector of course. I honestly did not think it was that big a deal. I did not see anyone groped, I did not see anyone get their clothes ripped off or anything strange like that. Everyone just wanted to get through the whole security thing and find their gate and catch their flights. Honestly, it was not that big a deal.
Terrye (2e6779) — 11/17/2010 @ 10:49 amThat was three weeks ago.
AD-RtR/OS! (68ed01) — 11/17/2010 @ 11:26 amDid they use the back of their hand for the pat-down, or the front?
The new proceedure calls for using the front of the hand.
If they used the back, you weren’t a recipient of the new proceedure, so check back with us after your next flight, particularly if you decline the electronic strip-search.
Terrye, You went through the scanner like a good sheep. Of course you didn’t have it rough. They were making examples of persons who refused.
The scanner isn’t quite as safe as advertised: if you fly frequently you should refuse for health reasons and because the equipment cannot be guaranteed to be properly set up, calibrated, maintained and operated.
You have no problem with useless (and I mead absofuckinguseless) images of your naked form up for review of the goverment when there is not the slightest suspicion of you.
FIne, but I think you’re a fool.
My mileage varies. My frequent flyer mileage is likely to vary in the future.
SarahW (af7312) — 11/17/2010 @ 11:45 amAnd hell yeah, it’s political, in the sense that anyone in government who funds this operation is not likely to get my vote.
SarahW (af7312) — 11/17/2010 @ 11:47 amJD – It sounds like you remove the jewelry from your piercings before going through security to avoid embarrassing delays. Prolly a good idea.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/17/2010 @ 12:01 pmMaybe this whole circus is an effort to make interrogation method with a dose of profiling a little more palatable?
I don’t envy the White House’s task of keeping us safe, but when El Al has a more enjoyable screening method for Arabs than the USA does, we should reconsider some PC issues.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/17/2010 @ 12:15 pmEverybody should be required to fly naked. Everybody. With no luggage.
Birdbath (8501d4) — 11/17/2010 @ 2:11 pmRadiation, molestation or deportation: No one flies for free.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 11/17/2010 @ 2:57 pm~TSA Motto
“…but when El Al has a more enjoyable screening method for Arabs than the USA does for non-Arabs…”
FTFY!
AD-RtR/OS! (68ed01) — 11/17/2010 @ 3:14 pmThey had these in “Total Recall” and that wasn’t a police state. Oh, wait, it was!
Kevin M (73dcc9) — 11/17/2010 @ 4:08 pmJD–
The basic problem with TSA is the 4th amendment and searches without probable cause. You can do this at the border, but what on earth gives the government power to do it in Burbank?
To say that you don’t have to fly is ludicrous. That’s right up there with saying we can look at your bank accounts and credit card records without cause, because you could use cash, or we can tap your phone, bug your house or whatever since you don’t really need a phone, or house.
All we ever needed to do was mandate a $20/hour wage for private airport screeners on 9/12 and we’d not need these prison guards or the phony security they pretend to give at great cost.
Kevin M (73dcc9) — 11/17/2010 @ 4:13 pmMcCaskill picks up on the porn theme…love pats…
Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said prior to Pistole’s testimony that she believed TSA was in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, because people would be hopping mad at TSA if Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Adbulmutallab had succeeded. She went on to say the new advanced imaging technology–which has caused uproar because of its leave-no-secrets imaging and potential health risks–is more of a blessing than a curse.
“I’m wildly excited that I can walk through a machine instead of getting my dose of love pats,” Sen. McCaskill said.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 11/17/2010 @ 5:27 pm