THE HOUSE AIRLINE SECURITY PLAN AT ITS FINEST
louisianne
Published November 1, 2001
Chicago Tribune
David Dietrich is an emergency room nurse working the night shift at
French Hospital in picturesque San Luis Obispo, Calif.
He's also a fine artist, a portrait painter.
"But nursing pays the bills," the transplanted Chicagoan said when he
told me his sad O'Hare Airport security tale.
The nurse/artist thing is strange. But it's no stranger than
firefighter/housepainter; mayor/bike rider; chief of detectives/jewel
thief, or any number of combos.
What he's not, Dietrich insists, is a psycho/terrorist, or even maniac
hijacker/pro-Taliban dude.
"I don't look like a criminal," Dietrich said, who prides himself on
his neat appearance. "I've even done some modeling in the past."
Well, anyway, a few days ago--after visiting his family in nearby
Wheaton--he was about to fly back to Los Angeles.
He stopped at the security checkpoint.
"A security person took my bag over to a table and she asked `Sir, may
I ask you what's in this bag?'"
It was his oil paints and artist's brushes.
"At that moment she made the kind of remark you would make when you
find something, a treasure or something," Dietrich recalled.
"And she looks over to her right and I follow her with my eyes. And
there's two guys standing over about 30 feet away with fatigues and
guns and another guy with a white shirt. She walks over to where
they're standing. And at that point, I'm thinking, `Oh great. I'm
going to have to defend my paints now.'"
The security agent, the soldiers and the guy in the white shirt,
obviously a supervisor, marched back to speak to Dietrich.
The agent told him: You can't take these on the plane.
"I didn't know how to react, so I didn't say anything. And the guy in
the white shirt said, `May I ask what paints they are?' And I said,
`They're oil paints.' And he says, `No, you can't take them on.' And
I'm thinking, well, my brushes, I need to at least keep my brushes.
"I said, `Can I take the brushes then?' And he says, `Have they been
used?' I said, yeah. And he says, `No. You can't take them either.'"
Dietrich asked if he could leave his precious supplies there and pick
them up when he returned to town in December. They said no chance. And
they didn't give him the option of checking the supplies as luggage.
The official security woman packed up his paints and brushes and
walked away.
"I almost started crying," he said. "I got tears in my eyes, like,
`I'm losing something here I've had for a long time. I've painted a
lot of pictures with them.' And I paused, and shook my head and kept
on walking."
Clearly, the skies were safe from Dietrich and his oil paints and a
few thin sticks with pig-bristles on the end. And Dietrich, who had
spent years using those brushes, was obviously crushed.
I don't know much about art. I'm a butcher by training. Once, though,
I seriously considered trying to sculpt the head of Sen. Richard
Durbin from a crown roast of veal. But I didn't have the guts to do
it.
However, I did ask artists how they'd feel about having their
paintbrushes yanked away by airport security as deadly weapons.
"You can't kill anybody with a brush," said Breakfast Club Tony, who
is also an artist. "If you paint, you get attached to your brushes and
you can keep them for years. That would have killed me, if they took
my brushes away."
"A paintbrush isn't really a deadly weapon," Tony said. "A palette,
though, that's different. A couple of extremely tough artists could
throw their palettes like Odd Job in James Bond, but only if they were
tough enough."
When Dietrich got to California, he got on the telephone in hopes of
retrieving his stuff.
He said the United Airlines lady told him to write a letter to the
airport. The guy at O'Hare airport security said it wasn't their
problem. And so on.
The woman at the Federal Aviation Administration was very nice--but
she couldn't do anything.
Finally, we determined that officials might have been worried that
dried paint thinner on the brushes could have been flammable.
Such a flame could have singed a cocktail weenie pierced by a United
toothpick, but not much more.
We made a few calls to Argenbright Security Inc.'s Atlanta office.
Argenbright is the agency that hires security at O'Hare and has a
habit of hiring criminals as airport security screeners. We talked to
a woman who said that, following Dietrich's inquiry, she was
"coordinating" the paint rescue.
I probably hurt his cause more than helped it. The woman accused me of
not having "Southern manners."
The next day, the company called Dietrich to say his paints had been
recovered.
"We found your paints," the rescue coordinator told him. "But not your
brushes."
Maybe he could try finger painting.
Mike Russell
Denver.
The wrench had been in my possession for over 10 years, and gone on many
flights in the past. My explanation: a full size wrench makes a fine weapon
and the security person probably had instructions to confiscate *all*
wrenches. Whatever. I gave them the wrench as a gift, with my blessing, and
moved on.
What I didn't do is stand on ceremony and demand that they explain what they
were doing, or indeed that they do anything except their jobs as best they
understood them.
Let's get serious - people want to kill us, and have killed us, by the
thousands using our airplanes, and cute stories about an artist's brushes
being confiscated are entertaining, perhaps, but irrelevant to the bigger
situation.
--
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
"louisianne" <no-...@this.net> wrote in message
news:8qo9ut0m4guu54oda...@4ax.com...
louisianne
wrote:
>I got a small crescent wrench - 3-1/2 inches long - taken away by security in
>Denver.
>
>The wrench had been in my possession for over 10 years, and gone on many
>flights in the past. My explanation: a full size wrench makes a fine weapon
>and the security person probably had instructions to confiscate *all*
>wrenches. Whatever. I gave them the wrench as a gift, with my blessing, and
>moved on.
>
>What I didn't do is stand on ceremony and demand that they explain what they
>were doing, or indeed that they do anything except their jobs as best they
>understood them.
>
>Let's get serious - people want to kill us, and have killed us, by the
>thousands using our airplanes, and cute stories about an artist's brushes
>being confiscated are entertaining, perhaps, but irrelevant to the bigger
>situation.
So, where do YOU draw the line? Or, do you?
Mike Russell
> wrote:
>
> >I got a small crescent wrench - 3-1/2 inches long - taken away by security
in
> >Denver.
> >Let's get serious - people want to kill us, and have killed us, by the
> >thousands using our airplanes, and cute stories about an artist's brushes
> >being confiscated are entertaining, perhaps, but irrelevant to the bigger
> >situation.
"louisianne" <no-...@this.net> wrote in message
news:mkhaut4obvv7eod1r...@4ax.com...
> So, where do YOU draw the line? Or, do you?
I do think the airline security has the right to complete search and seizure
of every object that I carry on an airplane, without explanation. I believe I
have the right, should I so choose, to have that seizure documented.
I draw the line at lives and significant property being in danger, the rights
of citizens and legal immigrants and visitors.
I have very little concern for the rights to possession of property or due
process for people who are here illegally AND who are flying on our planes,
and in fact consider them an imminent danger. I am concerned that we not
denigrate ourselves by poor treatment of these people.
Lastly, I think many of us are still basking in the comfort zone of pre 9/11,
when it was a fashionable hobby for both left and right to criticize our
government in every way, shape, and form. We still have that duty, but it
should be a duty, not a hobby.
This is why I find feckless entertainment pieces like yours about the
confiscated paintbrushes to be disturbing because it seems to ignore the
seriousness of what we are facing. So, it makes me think that sadly it may
take some more terrorist incidents to wake more of us up to what we are
facing.
louisianne
wrote:
On the other hand, I think it draws attention to the seriousness of an
EVEN GREATER danger we are facing, one that was immortalized many
years ago in two phrases: "We have seen the enemy and it is us," and
"We had to destroy the village in order to liberate it."
Danger comes when things are carried to a point of absurdity, in
either direction.
Mike Russell
> On the other hand, I think it draws attention to the seriousness of an
> EVEN GREATER danger we are facing, one that was immortalized many
> years ago in two phrases: "We have seen the enemy and it is us," and
> "We had to destroy the village in order to liberate it."
For "immortalized" quotes that outclass any comic strip (even Pogo), look to
Churchill and Roosevelt, not Walt Kelly. The lesson of Vietnam is simply
wrong now.
> Danger comes when things are carried to a point of absurdity, in
> either direction.
Then consider the two extremes we are facing: sacrifice of our dignity and
liberty, and paralysis.
America in 1945, with its now well-known wartime "excesses" of internment of
citizens, and use of nuclear weapons and firestorms to destroy entire cities
of civilians, was still America. These actions, terrible as they were, were
scarcely so extreme as to become an absurdity. We were pressed to the metal,
and in the interest of our survival and safety we may have overdone it. So
has every country engaged in a serious war done before us. We may overdo it
again now, especially given the warlike character of the present
administration.
How about the other extreme of squabbling over trivia, such as confiscated
artist's materials, while an enemy is attacking us? Let us not be so fearful
of the excesses of our own government - whom we may throw out of office in
three short years - that it inhibits that government from defending us. That
way lies absurdity of the first water: an extreme that would have been beyond
the imagination of our founding fathers.
I have faith that we will un-learn the lesson of Vietnam in time to address
the danger we face. If some of us are slow even to admit there is an enemy at
all, wait.
louisianne
wrote:
>...
>> On the other hand, I think it draws attention to the seriousness of an
>> EVEN GREATER danger we are facing, one that was immortalized many
>> years ago in two phrases: "We have seen the enemy and it is us," and
>> "We had to destroy the village in order to liberate it."
>
>For "immortalized" quotes that outclass any comic strip (even Pogo), look to
>Churchill and Roosevelt, not Walt Kelly. The lesson of Vietnam is simply
>wrong now.
Perhaps you are unaware that it was a military commander(s) that said
both statements, before they became cartoons.
As I recall, you can find them on one or another of the videotape
series on the Viet Nam War by Walter Cronkite, unless you think the
opinions and impressions on live videotape by the participants
themselves is somehow superceded by persons long dead.
>> Danger comes when things are carried to a point of absurdity, in
>> either direction.
>
>Then consider the two extremes we are facing: sacrifice of our dignity and
>liberty, and paralysis.
>
>America in 1945, with its now well-known wartime "excesses" of internment of
>citizens, and use of nuclear weapons and firestorms to destroy entire cities
>of civilians, was still America. These actions, terrible as they were, were
>scarcely so extreme as to become an absurdity.
A number of the players in American internment policy said in their
memoirs that they were surpised that the country went along with it. I
think that pretty clearly says they were well aware of the absurdity.
Even Churchill, whom you seem fond of, said that the bombing of
Dresden and other German citiess brought up some greivous questions
regarding war policy -- and the Brits had far more direct threat to
their lives and nation than did Americans:
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing
of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should
be reviewed ... I feel the need for more precise concentration upon
military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the
immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton
destruction. "
-- Winston Churchill to Air Marshall Arthur Harris
>How about the other extreme of squabbling over trivia, such as confiscated
>artist's materials, while an enemy is attacking us?
So, where are these attacks going on at the present? Is there
something the government or media has failed to tell us
Are there mounted Taliban fighters riding down the street anywhere in
America?
Do be good enough to list each and every substantiated terrorist
attack on the territorial United States since 09/11/2001.
So, tell me again, where is this "enemy is attacking us?"
You would have "defense of the country" be Don Quixote?
NOTE: Constant fear mongering, by Ashcroft, Ridge, et al, does not
constitute an attack. It consitutes the actions of an administration
that has not a clue what is going on, and is trying to do CYA.
>Let us not be so fearful
Good advice ... perhaps you should try it, if you think that "an enemy
is attacking us."
>of the excesses of our own government - whom we may throw out of office in
>three short years -
One can only await the day. We shall see, as George Will says, "in the
fullness of time."
Mike Russell
> attack on the territorial United States since 09/11/2001.
>
> So, tell me again, where is this "enemy is attacking us?"
There have been ongoing hijackings and bombings of American interests for
years, with 9/11 being the most recent. This constitutes an ongoing attack,
even if one ignores the anthrax and recent threats to bridges in California.
Your question implies that you do not believe there is much, if any, threat to
America. Do you really think WTC was a once-only event, safe to ignore?
The fullness of time, as you say, will tell. IMHO, the longer it takes us to
learn that we have an enemy, the more that enemy may hurt us.
louisianne
wrote:
>> Do be good enough to list each and every substantiated terrorist
>> attack on the territorial United States since 09/11/2001.
>>
>> So, tell me again, where is this "enemy is attacking us?"
>
>There have been ongoing hijackings and bombings of American interests for
>years, with 9/11 being the most recent. This constitutes an ongoing attack,
>even if one ignores the anthrax and recent threats to bridges in California.
>
>Your question implies that you do not believe there is much, if any, threat to
>America. Do you really think WTC was a once-only event, safe to ignore?
Ignore, no. One-time event, yes.