autoDogmatic Store - Post details: Kip Hawley is an Idiot (You don't have rights in here)

Kip Hawley is an Idiot (You don't have rights in here)

Posted on 10-04-2006 at 12:12:38 pm by Justin, 586 words, 789 views

A week ago today, Ryan Bird was detained for almost thirty minutes by TSA agents. Was he carrying forbidden items or acting in a suspicious manner? Was he doing anything illegal, scary or otherwise?

No.

Bird had simply scribbled "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on his Zip-lock baggie -- you know, the clear plastic baggie as permitted by the silly new TSA allowances allowing travelers to carry-on small (3 oz.) toiletries in such a baggie.

Kip Hawley, in case you're not up on government stooges, is the Director of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Ryan describes the incident as follows:

Yesterday, while discussing the new [TSA] rules a fellow Flyertalker suggested we write "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on the outside of our clear plastic quart bags. So I did just that.

At the [Milwaukee, Wisconsin, General Mitchell International Airport or "MKE"] MKE "E" checkpoint I placed my laptop in one bin, and my shoes, cell phone and quart bag in a second bin. The TSA guy who was pushing bags and bins into the X-ray machine took a good hard look, and then as the bag when though the X-ray I think he told the X-ray operator to call for a bag check/explosive swab on my roller bag to slow me down. He went strait to the TSA Supervisor on duty and boy did he come marching over to the checkpoint with fire in his eyes!

He grabbed the baggie as it came out of the X-ray and asked if it was mine. After responding yes, he pointed at my comment and demanded to know "What is this supposed to mean?" "It could me a lot of things, it happens to be an opinion on mine." "You can't write things like this" he said, "You mean my First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't apply here?" "Out there (pointing pass the id checkers) not while in here (pointing down) was his response."

There's plenty more to the story. If you're interested, just check out the flyertalk.com link, above.

From a standpoint of protest and/or satire, I couldn't help but acknowledge how the clear plastic baggy TSA toiletry rules are a symbol for the current times. Transparency is everything -- our basic right to privacy is disappearing. We're living in a post 9/11 world: as the TSA goon said, you don't have rights in here.

Provoked by Ryan Bird's story, I did up a design (the above graphic and that below) for purposes of putting it on t-shirts. The idea is to remind us about how bizarre and ridiculous these times are.

If you're interested in a shirt, there are a few different varietals of the "Kip Hawley is an Idiot!" t-shirt (For both men and women). Please send any feedback my way. And if you grab a shirt, once you have it, I encourage you to wear it to the airport (or anywhere you want, of course). The way to fight this battle is not by being afraid, worrying about taking a potentially upsetting stance, or worrying about people giving you strange looks. We make progress by pushing ourselves and others. As it is with all courageous action, others will see you lead and they will join.

Other links to check out on the "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" debacle are:

Kip Condor is a Lazybones at No Treason
Kip Hawley is an Idiot dot Com - Official website?
The "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" post on Boing Boing where most of us first heard about this

Categories: auto T's • 5 comments

Permalink

Comments:

Comment from: Idaho_Spud [Visitor]

You already have to give up your 2nd amendment rights when you fly. Why not the rest of them as well? It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: If the second amendment rights weren't suspended for law-abiding citizens in-flight, the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01 never could have taken place.

Permalink 10-04-2006 @ 21:02

Comment from: kwark [Visitor]

Right, because YOU probably would've already been shot by some drunken businessman pissed over his failure to be upgraded to first class. More guns will solve everything.

Permalink 10-05-2006 @ 00:33

Comment from: Justin [Member]

I'm taking a chance in speaking for Spud (he'll certainly chime in, I hope), but I think the point Idaho is making is akin to the notion that, in a post 9/11 world, terrorists could never hijack a plane with knives without facing a rebellion by the passengers of the plane. It is the the threat of force that acts as a deterrent. It's similar also to nuclear proliferation: remember the movie, War Games? Nobody wins.

Another aspect of such an argument is that laws that prevent weaponry (in general) will be followed by peaceful citizens but disregarded completely by violent-loving folk. So what good do they do?

Not really hoping to start a debate. Arguments about guns, though interesting and important discussions to have, are for another post, at another time.

Permalink 10-05-2006 @ 07:26

Comment from: js290 [Visitor]

· http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2005/12/different-argument-for-right-to-bear.html

spud, I think the 2nd admendment protects our rights to bear arms against our own government, which integrated over the entire population probably causes more harm than the occasional terrorist attack.

kwark, criminals, by definition, break the law.

Permalink 10-05-2006 @ 09:44

Comment from: Idaho_Spud [Visitor]

easy there Kwark :)

I'm not exactly a pro-gun type. Neal made the point better than I did. I just made the point that one *law-abiding* armed citizen on each aircraft could have prevented the entire thing. But of course that was not possible, as we all have lost our rights in that venue. Why be surprised when free speech follows? See ya in the Gulag, comrade! :)

Permalink 10-06-2006 @ 04:31