TSA has installed some new explosive detection equipment to screen passengers:

The federal Transportation Security Administration has finished a pilot program, which started in June 2004, by installing explosives detectors for passengers in 14 cities. By the end of September, 44 detectors will be installed in 10 additional airports, including Pittsburgh, the TSA said.

...

The explosives detector looks like a doorframe, like the metal detectors now used at the airport checkpoint. Passengers will stand still for a few seconds while the detector releases several puffs of air.

The detector collects and analyzes the air for traces of explosives, according to TSA. A computerized voice will tell passengers when they can step out of the doorway, said Ann Davis, regional TSA spokeswoman.

The machine, which costs more than $3 million, is an added layer of security, not a replacement for any existing security measures, Davis said.

The pilot program gave the TSA the opportunity to fine-tune the machine's operations, "and it certainly helped improve customer service by reducing the number of individuals selected for pat-down procedures," Davis said.

Currently, the only way to check passengers for explosives in Pittsburgh is through pat-downs and random searches, Snell said.

"The machine is also very sophisticated and sensitive, and can detect even the smallest trace element of explosives," Davis said.

That means heart patients who take nitroglycerin, which is one of the prohibited chemicals, could set off the alarm, Snell said. They might smooth the checkpoint process by carrying the medication in the prescription bottle or have a prescription with them, though they probably would be sent to secondary pat-down procedures.

 Cities in the pilot program were Baltimore, Boston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York (Kennedy), Phoenix, San Francisco, San Diego, Tampa, Jacksonville, Fla.; Gulfport, Miss.; Providence, R.I.; and Rochester, N.Y.

Those to be added along with Pittsburgh are Dallas/Fort Worth, Washington, D.C. (Dulles and Reagan National), Charlotte, N.C.; Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach, Fla.; Newark, N.J., New York (LaGuardia) and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

$3 Million for each machine???  My guess is the machines will either generate far, far too many false positives or else not detect explosives carried by someone that put reasonable effort into sealing them up.  There is simply far too much overlap in the residue between someone walking through a recently fertilized lawn, an gravel pit, or construction site or other innocent activity and someone who purposely hid explosives on themselves.  I believe that money is being completely wasted.  Well, perhaps not totally wasted--it will make people with certain types of mental problems feel better.

My view is that there is only so much pain that can exist in the 'bubble' around me.  If I'm feeling pain then the way to get rid of it is to give it back to the person that gave it to me.  That's what makes me feel better.

Greg Hamilton
Self Defense Instructor
February 5, 1997

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt.

John Philpot Curran
The Right of Election of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, speech,
10 July 1790, Dublin

[The quote “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.“ is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson but in some circles is in question.  The previous one by Curran is fairly certain to be correctly attributed and is more complete in “my book“. -- Joe]

Anne Applebaum almost gets it right.  Right up to the very end when she should be concluding the obvious (“security screening” probably cannot ever be made to work successfully and should be abandoned) she wimps out and doesn't face the facts she herself put forward.  But it's close enough to get people thinking.  Here's a taste of the good stuff:

...outside inspectors have found, over and over again, that federal screeners perform no better than the private screeners they replaced. Since they inspect only passengers and baggage, not the airport and its perimeter, they haven't eliminated the need for other forms of law enforcement either. And even when they are doing their rather narrow job correctly, their impact is dubious.

...this mass ceremonial sacrifice of toenail clippers on the altar of security comes at an extraordinarily high price. The annual budget of the federal Transportation Security Administration hovers around $5.5 billion -- just about the same price as the entire FBI -- a figure that doesn't include the cost of wasted time. De Rugy reckons that if 624 million passengers each spend two hours every year waiting in line, the annual loss to the economy comes to $32 billion.

...

But, then, this isn't a country that has ever been good at risk analysis. If it were, we would never have invented the TSA at all. Instead, we would have taken that $5.5 billion, doubled the FBI's budget, and set up a questioning system that identifies potentially suspicious passengers, as the Israelis do.

BINGO!!!

...

I conclude that we don't actually want value for money. No, we want every passenger to have the chance to recite that I-packed-these-bags-myself mantra to a uniformed official before boarding an airplane. Magic words, it seems, are what make Americans feel really safe.

Yup.  You got that right.

See also my web pages on this topic.

As I mentioned earlier today JPFO has a booklet--Do Gun Prohibitionists Have a Mental Problem?  Here are some of the mental problems mentioned in the booklet:

1. Projection--A person cannot accept their own feelings because they are bad, wrong, or forbidden so they project them onto others.  A typical anti-gun person that uses this mechanism might have feelings of unconscious rage toward gun owners, project them onto the gun owners, then have a conscious fear of gun owners.
2. Denial--A person refuses to accept reality because that reality is too emotionally painful.  A typical anti-gun person that uses this mechanism might believe that the police are all anyone really needs to protect them from attack by criminals or that a tyrannical government could never happen here.
3. Reaction formation--A person turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.  A typical anti-gun person that uses this mechanism might have a murderous rage toward his fellow humans and then claim to be a pacifist and believe they are “superior” to “less civilized” people who engage in “violent behavior” such as hunting or target shooting.

The booklet goes on say that pointing out the mental problems to the anti-gun person isn't going to be very productive.  What you need to do is:

1. Make the person feel safe, then provide experiences and information to help him understand the positive aspects of gun ownership.
2. Be gentle.  Defense mechanism protect people from feelings they cannot handle.  If you take that protection away, you can cause serious psychological harm.  And because defense mechanisms operate unconsciously, it won't do any good to point out to the anti-gun person that he or she is using a defense mechanism.
3. Use the mirror technique.  Feed back what the anti-gun person is telling you, in a neutral inquisitive way.  If someone says that people shouldn't own guns because they don't want to be killed if their neighbor had a bad day, you might respond, “So you fear if your neighbors had guns, they would use them to murder you.  What makes you think that?“  It's important to ask “open-ended“ questions that require an answer other than “yes“ or “no“.  Such questions require he anti-gun person to actually think about what he is saying.
4. Don't try to “win“ the argument.  If you are arrogant, hurtful or rude to the anti-gun person, you will only convince him that gun owners are arrogant, hurtful and rude people--who shouldn't be trusted with guns.
5. Respond sympathetically to the plight of the anti-gun person.  If they believe they are surrounded by people that want to kill them and their family if only those people had a gun and they could do nothing but wait for the inevitable they lead a terrified life.  Invoke your own compassion for their situation.
6. Provide corrective experiences.  Corrective experiences are experiences that allow a person to learn that his ideas about gun owners and guns are incorrect in a safe and non-threatening way.

There is a lot more material in booklet.  Many of the JPFO “Gran'pa Jack” booklets are for giving to anti-gun people.  This one has probably is better utilized by distributing it to pro-gun people.  Although I haven't done that with this one I have purchased a few hundred of their booklets and let the local sporting goods store give them away.  I've also given them away at Boomershoot events and local IPSC matches.

Update: See also the more complete version here: Raging Against Self Defense.

Maryland just initiated a state program to license retired police officers to carry concealed handguns, making Maryland one of the first states to implement new federal laws expanding gun rights for retired and off-duty officers.  Idaho (YEAH!) and Arizona were ahead of them as might be expected.  The governor, Robert Ehrlich, was a supporter of the change and said this:

 "This is good public policy that will make a safer state, which is why I am very proud Maryland has led."

But a barking moonbat gun control advocate had this to say:

     Leah Barrett, executive director of the gun-control group CeaseFire Maryland Inc., said allowing officers to carry a gun anywhere at any time is "essentially dangerous."
    "We have too many guns in this country and too many people carrying them," she said. "Accidents happen."

While cleaning out my room in Richland yesterday (I'm all moved back to Idaho now) I found my copy of the JPFO booklet Do Gun Prohibitionists Have a Mental Problem?  Of course Ms. Barrett is a walking, talking example of a mental problem but I'll post a few items from the booklet later today to help you identify the specific problems you see in these fruitcakes.

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

Dwight Eisenhower

From Schneier's blog I found a link to a lock for your pint of Ben & Jerry's.  Interesting enough for a blog posting all on it's own.  But what I found even more interesting/amusing at the site was this sketch:

No one can tell me that I can and should use deadly force.

Edward Wenger
FBI sharpshooter testifying before congress in regards to the death of Vickie Weaver by FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi.
Sept 14, 1995
[Horiuchi's rules of engagement orders were "... can and should use deadly force against any armed adult..."  Even if a surrender order had not been given. 

Things to remember about the Weaver incident:

1. It occurred during the presidency of George H. Bush before Clinton was elected.
2. Horiuchi was a sniper who 'saw action' at Waco under the Clinton adminstration.
3. 'Management' at Ruby Ridge (Weaver) gave illegal orders but neither they nor the people who followed those orders were given signficant punishment.
4. Some of the same 'management' was at Waco.
5. Neither political party has a monopoly on illegal and immoral acts and the people willing to execute those acts follow orders of anyone willing to give them.

-Joe Huffman-]

Both political parties want to enslave the people.  The difference is that one is working toward the Nazi model and the other is working towards the Chinese model.

Greg Hamilton
10/27/2000
At his Halloween party.

I'm shocked!  Is freedom making a comeback in Canada?  Does this mean we might not have to liberate them after we get done with the Mid-East?  I know--I'm getting way ahead of things here.  They still officially have their gun registration scheme and they haven't actually reversed their downward spiral into the abyss of the most failed political system of all time, but they did have an important court ruling that may cause some serious ripples in the fabric of the 'reality' of socialists in both Canada and this country.  The socialists know it and even say it out loud.  Here's the story:

In the decision of Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) that was handed down on Thursday by the Supreme Court of Canada, the court found that Quebec laws that prohibit the purchase of insurance to cover private medical treatment violated the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The majority of the court found that waiting times in the public system violated the Quebec Charter of Rights. While it was not necessary to decide, three of the justices found that the Quebec law violates section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights that guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The court held that delays in the public health system led to prolonged pain and suffering, deteriorating medical conditions and in some cases, death. In coming to this conclusion in what will inevitably be to the dismay of those on the political left, the Supreme Court followed its 1998 decision in R. v. Morgentaler that held that delays encountered by women seeking abortions breached section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The interesting aspect of the Chaoulli decision, and the one that most deviated from what politicians of all political parties have been spewing for years was the finding that this breach of a charter right was not reasonable. The court found that while the preservation of a publicly funded health care system was a substantive and legitimate government objective, the outright ban on private health care insurance had no rational connection to saving the public system and went further than was necessary to meet that objective. In the majority’s opinion, the government of Quebec failed to show that allowing Quebeckers to purchase insurance for private health care would destroy Canada’s public health care system. In reaching this conclusion the court examined other countries in the OECD such as Sweden and the U.K. that have strong public health care systems despite allowing private parallel health care services.

This finding is at odds with what the politicians have been saying for years; that not only will allowing private medical services destroy our health care system; it will destroy Canada as we know it. The entire fabric of our society will disappear. We are constantly being told that our health care system is what defines us as a country. Allow someone to actually pay for what is now a public service and we will be no different than the United States.

From The Salt Lake Tribune:

 A state legislator is setting up free concealed weapon classes for policy-makers and their families this summer, while at the same time formulating a proposal to make it easier for Utahns to secretly carry a firearm.
    Clearfield Republican Rep. Curtis Oda says the sessions are aimed at educating lawmakers and debunking gun-control advocates' criticism of Utah's gun laws.
    The first two students were Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert. Since then, 12 legislators and eight other elected officials have taken the free gun-handling classes. And Oda has another 25 legislators interested, with the next class scheduled for July.

The reporter is biased (notice the use of the word “secretly“ instead of the more common “concealed“ and the picture of the legislator is terrible) against gun ownership but still our side is on the offensive and making progress.  And of course it's always pleasant to hear the other side whine:

    Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah board member Maura Carabello calls Oda's classes "exposure lobbying" that gets around Utah's lobbyist disclosure laws but still persuades lawmakers to be sympathetic to his cause.
    "I object to this being framed as merely educational, with no larger political intent," Carabello said. "This is not government responding to the public. This is a special interest trying to affect lawmakers."

...

     But Carabello says the free classes don't pass the proverbial "smell test." Oda's classes, she says, are a subtle form of lobbying for looser laws - something Utah doesn't need.

I know the business community considers us a bunch of vultures who just got done with one corpse and are looking for another, but the truth is that tobacco had to pay in no small measure because of what we did.

Robert Kerrigan
Referring to plans concerning legal action against gun makers.
From http://www1.jointogether.org/gv/wire/news/reader.jtml?Object_ID=256867
As of 1/5/98

Since my posting nearly a week ago there has been speculation I was fired because of my blog or it's content.  Technically I'm sure that is not true or at least it is a very small component of the official internal record.  The blog was used to find sufficient cause to investigate other things.  At least one item was ultimately found, which I knew was wrong when I did it and admitted to it when asked about it, which was sufficient cause according to company policy to terminate my employment .  That item was allowing my wife and daughter to browse the web using the company laptop.  I suspect there were other things which they believed to be wrong, but in fact were not, which were also used to justify their actions.  I probably will never know because they did not and probably will not ever allow those items to be examined and refuted.  But it doesn't matter because it only takes one step “over the line“.

A full report from my viewpoint, about what happened, the lessons learned, and how you can protect yourself will probably be released sometime next week.  Please keep your speculation to a minimum until then.

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson Papers
334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

Perhaps the most accurate conclusion one can reach with any confidence is that the core meaning of the Second Amendment is a populist / republican / federalism one: Its central object is to arm 'We the People' so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes -- not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons -- a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.

Laurence Tribe
American Constitutional Law
From The Smallest Minority