Gyroscope

A newsletter for those unmoved by spin.
No. 29, February 23, 2004

Subscribe

Change Address

Unsubscribe

Comment

Mojdeh Rohani forgot to put her wedding cake serving set in her checked luggage. Stopped at security, she was allowed to check the luggage and take a later flight. No problem, until she received a notice fining her $150 for the attempt. Then she was threatened with a doubling of the fine if she protested. She demanded a hearing. And they agreed - all she had to do was fly clear across the country to Baltimore, so reports USA Today (Feb. 20, p. 3A)

The TSA website indicates that while there is a list of acceptable and a list of prohibited items for taking on an aircraft, the screeners are allowed to make up rules on the spot and declare items on the acceptable list illegal. Since they warn you that you can be fined or arrested for bringing illegal items to the security screening area, that means you can be arrested or fined just for them having a bad attitude.

Safety razors are considered acceptable to carry on the aircraft but not "razor type blades." You can carry on a toy gun, but not a "realistic replica" of a gun. Realistic replicas of incendiaries are also illegal, as are spillable batteries, unless they are in a wheelchair. Mace is ok, if it comes in a small can with a safety latch. Pool cues are out, but a walking cane is ok.

On the other hand, anyone who runs for President on a non-right-wing agenda can't possibly be surprised at what the media will do. Anyone of moderate intelligence needs to have prepared for this and assembled a response. Be that 'truth squads' friendly third-party ad placement, or making the media a public issue, a candidate who wants to run for President has to have a plan for how to counter-act the media. Dean gave no sign of being ready to deal with this. And for that, he can be faulted.

You notice that the story about Bush and the National Guard has now died again. For a moment there, I thought Bush was on the run. Even Leno was making jokes about his alleged 'service', a sure sign that the public perspective has changed and it was understood that Bush had not fulfilled his obligations.

But, over the past two weeks or so, the story died. Why? It's not as if the questions got answered. The boat-load of documents the White House released on Feb.10th didn't exactly answer the key questions. Amazingly few people have surfaced to say that they saw Bush anywhere in 72 and 73 - in the National Guard or anywhere else.

What did happen is that the media agreed to participate in a counter-attack on Kerry. Suddenly all sorts of totally bogus claims were raised against his military record, including trying to link him to "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and to suggest that because he voted against defense spending, he was somehow unpatriotic. I think this was a little warning to the Kerry campaign of what to expect if they insisted on pushing the story of Bush. But I also think it was the media's goofy notion of 'balance' at work. If you half-heartedly pursue plausible allegations against one candidate, you can 'balance' that by slinging totally absurd charges at the other candidate, declare everything even and quit. Notice how one national magazine put them side by side on its cover - but put Bush in uniform and Kerry in civilian clothes - falsely implying the reverse of the actual truth about who served in the military and who did not.