Ulterior motives for airport scanning? What gives you that idea?
In the wake of the new TSA airport security rules, which you might have heard include the strip-searching of children and the naked scanning of 'Baywatch' babes (like Donna D'errico, there), some commentators have predicted that the only group that will likely NOT be subjected to this humiliation will be members of government, that group of would-be royals who from time to time have fancied themselves our intellectual and cultural superiors.
... Thanks for that advice, John. Don't know what we'd do without you.
It should come as some consolation, then, that "India Thursday termed as 'unacceptable' the 'pat down' search Indian ambassador Meera Shankar was subjected to in the US, the second time in three months, and said it will take up the issue with Washington."
"Let me be frank, this is unacceptable to India. We are going to take it up with the government of US that such unpleasant incidents do not recur,' said Krishna." (India's External Affairs Minister)
Lacking familiarity with Mr. Krishna's character, I couldn't claim with certainty that he is afflicted with the same arrogance as was Mr. Kerry when he made his statement concerning the electorate. But here's how the TSA- or American government officials, for that matter- should respond if they want to save face:
"We regret that the envoy from the democratic nation of India felt himself humiliated by the new security measures, but he must understand that the position of the United States on this matter is that government officials be subjected to the same rules and regulations which affect the citizenry, and no government official who claims to be above such rules and regulations will be granted entry into the United States."
Just a friendly suggestion by a mild-mannered voter.
Not that I prefer the new TSA rules, mind you. But I'll accept them as long as politicians- both foreign and domestic- do the same.
But then again...
No comments:
Post a Comment