******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Non-Whites Are Accustomed To Getting Their Junk Fondled, or Something Like That

This one cannot wait for a Saturday night. 

In listing the reasons why people are upset with TSA screening procedures, The New York Times plays racial psychologist:
RACE AND CLASS.  Even though air travel is far from luxurious, it is a still a big expense during a time of significant economic upheaval, so the people affected tend to be a little better off and more entitled. While many nonwhite Americans have grown up in a country where they are sometimes searched while merely going about their business — unwarranted stop-and-frisks have gone on for decades — white people aren’t used to having the hands of the state on them without cause. Unfamiliarity breeds outrage.
Notice the implication that non-whites are among the not-so-well off who do not travel by air, and also the assumption that non-whites are not outraged at having their breasts and genitals fondled by strangers just to board an airplane.  Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

I'll go with James Joyner's response:  "Uh huh."

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share


  1. Assumptions and presumptions seem to be acceptable substitutes for reality at the NYT, no surprise there!

  2. The constitutional scholars at the NYT seem to have missed that frisking outside of TSA screenings can only be done with probable cause. Geez. that paper gets worse and worse by the minute.

  3. "Even though air travel is far from luxurious, it is a still a big expense during a time of significant economic upheaval, so the people affected tend to be a little better off and more entitled."

    Just on the economics of it the NYT misses it. It is cheaper to fly than it is to drive if one compares the costs for say Atlanta - LA, or NYC - LA. But then I presume the owners of the NYT have probably not flown commercial since they probably use a private jet.

  4. So when is stop and frisk OK....?

    PHILADELPHIA - A civil liberties group filed a federal lawsuit Thursday challenging the use of "stop and frisk" searches by Philadelphia police, alleging that the policy is violating the rights of blacks and Latinos who have done nothing wrong.

    Apparently not in Philadelphia but no one minds in the airport it seems. At least these "pat downs" in Philly have gotten some results.

    In the lawsuit, the ACLU cites city data showing that 253,333 pedestrians were stopped last year, compared with 102,319 in 2005. More than 70 percent of the people stopped last year were black and only 8.4 percent of all stops led to an arrest, the ACLU said.

    Compare that to TSA pat downs which only seem to lead to arrest if you significantly did not enjoy it enough.
    The NYT's likes to leave that part out.

    In one situation you have a more than random chance of finding a weapon or drugs because you are in a high crime neighborhood in the other you search everybody just because they need to travel. There is not a likelihood that the search will yield results.
    When has the TSA ever caught a terrorist....?

    Believe me. If the TSA had an 8.4% record of finding weapons or explosive then no one would ever complain.

  5. American Thinker beat the NYT to the punch. The AT author, however, drew other conclusions.

  6. It's funny, because when I flew to LA in June, there where quite a few Blacks and Hispanics on the flight.

  7. http://robomonkey.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/dedicated-to-the-tsa/

  8. So they ones being patted down are Democrats, "the people affected tend to be a little better off and more entitled"? Who knew!?!?

  9. That Times piece may be subheaded with "RACE AND CLASS", but the author works in a bit of homophobia further on, as well, for a Progressive trifecta of why we overwrought, spoiled and knuckle-dragging reactionaries protest the latest TSA security regime.

    The writer's attitude seems to be that, since some Americans are accosted in personally intrusive ways, the rest of us should be, as well. I'm not sure I buy the premise that such trangressions happen on a regular basis without reasonable suspicion, but granted it's possible, why don't our humanitarian betters wish MORE due consideration and process for any non-privileged victims, instead of wishing police state heavy-handedness on everybody, you know, to be fair?

    Is the America they want a nation that strives for better personal liberties (and self-responsibilites) for every citizen or one in which we're all equally treated as threats (except for the *real* white, rich and often liberal elites?) Oh, why ask, we know the answer.

    Count me among those who won't be flying domestically, anymore. The shuffling lines, speech restrictions, partial disrobing, scanning, feel-ups and fines and arrests for non-compliance couldn't be more punitive and debasing in their effect.

    And maybe unhealthy. I'm a bit worried for our Type A frequent flier businessmen (and women), the warriors of our economy, who'll be getting their testes (and breasts) irradiated A LOT.