Mikey's Mom posts on PV
 

A very well-written response to Blogger Bob and the TSA!!!!!

Indeed.

Why not reach out to the family and turn a terrible PR moment into a good PR moment?

Of course, we are talking about the intrepid TSA warriors who believe they, and they alone, are the last line of defense that will keep planes from falling out of the sky, so I can't say I am surprised.

WTG, mom. ^

I'd love to see a response from Blogger Bob, but am not holding my breath.

It looks like most of the comments are just short of calling for Bob being run out of town on a rail after he's been tarred and feathered.

Response? ROTFLMAO. And now doubled up in agony. Why would that rancid waste management agency need to give a response?

A response? There is NOTHING the TSA could say in response to that wonderfully written comment.

Looks like BB was handed his A$$ in a fine manner.

TSA's little attempt at spin has augered in, right on target!

The only thing that might counteract a cute kid is, of course, a cute puppy post. Only weapon Bob has left. :p

If the puppy bit BB, I might feel some compassion. Even the puppies are getting tired of this crap.

Do you think it's well written? I think it could have been harder-hitting, to be honest.

TSA Myth Busters post in 3...2...1...:rolleyes:

I'm not surprised. I think it reflects that fact that sadly, the majority of people either believe the 'safety at all costs and TSA means safety' line (ie, "if it doesn't inconvenience me and/or I don't see it, it must not be there") or they just have resigned themselves to the situation. TSA knows this. They know that no matter what happens, they are above accountability. On the rare occasions someone of 'note' has tried to take them on (congress person, Anne Coulter (!), Gloria Allred (!)), there's been some kind of backroom conversation and the congress person or media figure has immediately backed down.

I think Bob sees the blog as a dialogue with a tiny dismayed fraction of the population, at best. There's no serious attempt to be truthful or to seriously engage. It really doesn't matter what hits the airwaves, because in the end, the fuss dies down and nothing changes for the better.

What's wrong with this picture? Where is Mom's lawyer? Her Congressmember?

What difference woudl it make if Mikey's parents did get a lawyer? Or involve their Congress member?

The lawyer would just get stonewalled ad nauseum and if their Congress person did get involved (very big 'if'), I'm sure there would be a backroom conversation and the Congress member would immediately find other issues to occupy his/her time.

Blogger Bob does not delete-o-meter posts that disagree with the TSA line, he only deletes those he feels are overly disrespectful. All in all he keeps a good balance.

Your rudder is adrift TK. I have had post not accepted at PV that completely complied with TSA posting standards.

I can't say it happens often but Bob has censored submissions to PV without cause.

Like I said if he feels the post is too disrespectful he will delete-o-meter it. The post may comply with the letter of the posting policy but not the spirit.

I have offered twice on my blog for people to post what the TSA deletes. Rarely have I been taken up on the offer.

I still say Blogger Bob does a decent job on the blog.

I am going to drop this issue now as I don't want to derail this thread.

Do you use a text editor to prepare and save your comments for the various blogs?

Most of the time I do copy my text in case there is a glitch, if I think there is any chance of my post making the delete-o-meter I copy it and email it to myself.

I'm thinking that if she was already getting media attention, Blogdad Bob's post will probably just add more fuel to the fire as she'll be able to use that response as a "see what a cluster$@!% this organization is."

Yes, it could have been. She could, indeed, have made a laughing-stock of herself by going completely overboard and posting something along these lines:

On the other hand, the post that she made, because of its very reasonableness, is more effective than a thousand of those kind of rants.

I completely agree! She has said more about the TSA and accomplished more in just one very reasonable and very personal post than any one of us have ever come close to accomplishing. Blogdad Bob has only two options: ignore it entirely, or do something the entire DHS has never done -- publicly apologize. It would be incredible classy if Gale or Nappy apologized. But, we all know that will never happen.

To say her post blew me away was an understatement.

Absolutely.

Bob goes on the offensive with a "oh, great... another kid on the TSA No-Fly List story. :rolleyes: "

Then, the mother shows up with a simple, "Um... all we wanted was to have someone from the TSA work with us to resolve the situation and instead we get an eyeroll."

Mikey's mother is now a sympathetic figure and Bob looks like nothing more than a dismissive TSA mouthpiece.

Do you really want to see him step on his crank with golf shoes again? It wasn't a pretty sight the first time...

I would say he is pretty much d__kless after Mrs. Hicks was done with him.

Excuse me, TK. Until now, Bob had some modicum of sympathy from me for being pretty even-handed in a very distasteful job whiile PV turned progressively from its original stated purpose into just a TSA press release and damage control machine, and nothing more. But this, TK, takes the cake. I know TSA dictates most of what Bob posts. For Bob to argue semantics was bad enough, but TSA-dictated, I have no doubt. But to compare this eight-year-old child to a tacky utube cat video really, really is over the edge. If ever I had the tiniest shred of forebearance for Bob, that's now gone permanently. His conduct was inexcusable. TSA didn't dictate that bit of disrespect and cavalier lack of concern. Bob did that all by himself. This child has been repeatedly patted down for years, a process obviously unnecessary even for the most die-hard TSO, and with which the child is obviously uncomfortable. And Bob thinks it's a chuckle to compare that to a tacky video of a cat in a satin jacket playing a piano.

This woman's quiet, understated grace shines like the evening star. At the risk of being pithy, a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. I devoutly hope, for the sake of this child, her calm and reasonable demeanor spurs someone -- anyone -- to straighten out this mess. And I hope this shines a light for all of the other people subjected to this behavior. She's a woman I've pointed out to my granddaughters as a role model.



~~ Irish

^ ^ ^


~~ Irish

Folks, we've removed several personal attacks and commentary on a fellow FTer.

Attacks are not allowed on any FT'er regardless of whether the work for the TSA/DHS or anywhere else.

Your cooperation is adhering to this rule is appreciated throughout the various threads here in TS/S and elsewhere on FT.

________________________

Cholula
TS/S Co-Moderator

Blogger Bob's likely response
 

Blogger Bob's likely response to the Mom's excellent post will be to try to get fines levied against Continental and US. That is, after all, the TSA party line--that airlines that "falsely" claim a passenger is on a DHS/TSA blacklist get fined.

Sent you a PM.

I have as well.

I'd say that pretty much sums up the reality of the situation.

I just took you up on that. Here's what I wrote:

Sunday, January 17, 2010
My Comment on the TSA Blog

There is currently a lively discussion going on the Travel Safety and Security forum at Flyer Talk about Mikey, the 8 year old Cub Scout who seems to be on a government terror watchlist. Blogger Bob, who writes for the TSA blog, seems to find Mikey's situation amusing.

In fact, here's a quote from Blogger Bob: "It’s inevitable that every several months or so, some cute kid gets their mug posted on a major news publication with a headline reading something like: “Does this look like a terrorist to you?” Anything involving kids or cats gets tons of mileage and everybody starts tweeting and retweeting that there’s an 8 year old on the no fly list."


There has been no shortage of comments on the TSA's blog. Here's a good one: "In the meantime, we still get to touch your children... all in the name of safety." - abelard

And we all know I can't help but have something to say. Here it is:

This is what I find most disturbing about the mistakes being made as to the "special" screenings of children.

As parents, we take pains to remind our children that they have the right to bodily integrity and control. "You don't have to let anyone touch you in 'places.'" (That's what we called it when my children were, well, children.)

Small children have a need to see their parents as "all powerful." They need this to feel safe in a world much bigger than they are. This is crucial to a child's psycho-social development. A young child needs to feel that her parents can outfight any "bad guy" who tries to bother or hurt her.

I cannot imagine standing for either of my boys being frisked by a stranger while crying with terror. Those who know me probably can't imagine it either. I tend to be aggressive when it comes to my children. Seriously aggressive.

I have to say I'm surprised that no child has fought back, or that no parents have stepped in to physically defend their children. It's only a matter of time.

Y'all need to shape up before somebody gets hurt.

I kind of liked the video. :D

You've got an interesting point, particularly with regard to the child fighting back. (If the parents fight back, they'll just be detained, abused, and arrested, as we've seen when one spouse tried to defend another. )

However, a school-aged child who has been (properly) taught to react harshly to inappropriate touching by strangers or even to being separated from their parents in a way that suggests abduction could react against an unsuspecting TSO with a non-trivial amount of force, possibly to the point of causing moderate to serious injury. (At least in my childhood, kids were routinely taught what vulnerable body regions to target in the event of an assault or attempted abduction.)

While I don't which permanent injury on anyone, I do wonder how TSA would react. It would be a PR nightmare to have the kid detained, arrested, or fined for "assaulting a screener," and if the kid were cute enough and the parents smart enough, it would make a huge media story, particularly when it came out what the TSO was doing at the moment of the assault. Going after the parents likely wouldn't be any more successful, and while IANAL, I'm not convinced that common sense would allow the parents to be held liable/responsible for what the kid thought was an act of self defense.

Your first mistake is using "government" and "common sense" in the same thought. It has been amply demonstrated that bad publicity doesn't bother the TSA, in fact they seem to welcome it -- adds the all important "fear factor" to make the sheep obey. A kid that fights back is going to be made an example of, and the parents are going to go to jail for Faginy.

And I hope any child who feels uncomfortable feels free to really really exercise their lungs in protest.

Of course, we ll know what will happen...parents will be ordered to calm the child down (from a distance) or not fly...

The real message we'll be sending our kids is 'you have a right to protect your bodily integrity unless...someone claims to be in authority and to have the right to violate you - then you have to do what they say. And we can't even explain why, because if we try to and we aren't careful, we'll all really be in trouble.' After all, you can't explain to the child that they're being checked for explosives or weapons or something that bad people could use to bring the plane down - if you do it at the airport, you're probably in big trouble. If you do it at home and the child pipes up in front of TSA and says something like "I don't have a gun", you could still be in big trouble.

And this really is an issue for me. If we were in some kind of totalitarian country where it is all about shut-up or be locked-up I would understand (not approve but understand). But considering that we are in a country that prides itself with "freedom of speech" I find it disturbing that we all do have to self-censor ourselves in talking to our kids in order to avoid being detained and/or otherwise in trouble.

Interesting thoughts posted here. Since Canada has mandated groping for children, we'll probably see some incidents very soon.

I think after the first kid fights back, the TSA and CATSA will ban kids from flying.

I can't see my son putting up with groping.

I can't imagine "self-censoring" at all when talking with family. It's made for some odd moments when one of the kids would ask me something, er, interesting.