Captain Kirk didn't believe in the no win scenario, so instead of going with the parameters of the Kobiashi Maru and realizing it was a futile situation to beat, he reprogrammed the computers to beat the simulation. Sure, it wasn't the goal of the simulation but when you think you have something down that is iron clad, that is supposedly foolproof in what the outcome should be, someone will find a way of modifying the rules to give another option.

As things were supposed to happen, the threat of terrorism would cause Americans to put up with any safety measure that would protect us. While we seem to look back at the terror alert color codes and duct tape (yeah, I'm sure a lot of us forgot about duct tape being an option for protection) we still allow poorly trained (not necessarily their fault) security guards to subject us to x-rays, removal of property and possible light searches. Is there a reason we can't have liquids in our carry on luggage? Well some guy tried liquids a few years ago so we have to check for it. Hmmm. Is there a reason why we have to take off our shoes? Well some guy tried to light his shoe which had explosives. Hmmmm.

Last Christmas a guy tried to light his underwear on fire which has explosives, now we are subjected to nude body scans (let's call it what it really is) or a very personal pat down which includes fondling of breasts and genitals. I want to move off of the obvious arguments that have been given on the reason for this and focus on an issue that was brought up on a liberal radio show and has slowly become a verbal viral issue. Instead of focusing on the underwear and the result we all have to deal with, why has there been no investigation as to how this kid with no passport was able to board the plane to America. Remember he went from his small country to Amsterdam and in Amsterdam all the flags that were supposed to trigger did. No passport and he paid in cash for the one way ticket got the Dutch authorities spooked. According to the accounts, there was a mysterious man who talked to the equivalent of the TSA agents there that got the boy on the plane, something that has been denied in later reports.

Even if you want to discount that you have the confirmed reports that the boy's father basically told every law enforcement agency his son was a threat. OK, this wasn't some father who saw some sketches his son did in his bedroom about death who went way out of line to tell the authorities about him. This was a well respected, educated official who saw his son heading towards radical Islam and gave many law enforcement agencies credible information his son was a danger. Just as a courtesy you would have figured one would have put him on the no fly list but this wasn't the case.

All of the security measures we have to endure reminds me of any scenario that would be familiar with any office drone. Someone in middle or upper management makes a mistake. They breach some security fence or shows someone sensitive information. About 95% of the rest of the office team has the good sense not to do that, or wouldn't have the access to do that, but because it's possible to happen the higher up people, worried about a law suit or the phantom of corporate retaliation, will set up new laws that 'everyone' is suppose to follow. The truth is the high ups won't have to follow the rules, the vast majority of workers, which are the low level workers, won't have the inclination or means of doing the same thing but the rules make it look like the upper management people are doing something. Now, anyone who really wanted to make mischief with the company would simply take their time and figure out another way of breaching the system. Once done management goes into a tizzy and makes a new set of rules which still doesn't fix the underlying threat, but it looks like they're doing something.

That is what we are subjected to when we go to the airport. We have a TSA that is there to protect the higher ups in government who are failing to protect us on a fundamental level. The TSA is there for show, and you need only to look at the evidence that is used to justify the tough procedures. A guy tried to blow up a plane with his shoe, so to prevent this we have EVERYONE take off their shoes and put them through a scanner. I'm on a domestic flight from Phoenix to Philadelphia and the thinking is I'm going to use a shoe bomb to blow up the plane? Now, using the scenario about the shoe bomber, he was coming from a foreign country to the US. Wouldn't it make more sense, judging by the pattern, that maybe if you had to deal in the shoe fetish you might want to look at international flights? I would even go so far as to say check those originating in the US to other countries as well as those heading to the US. Logic would seem to suggest this would be the case but not to the TSA.

The underwear bomber, as mentioned earlier, had so many red flags he should have been caught well before getting on the US plane, but again a tough search of him coming to the US makes sense. A young boy, an old woman, people with medical conditions they warn TSA about, these are the people getting grabbed and man handled by TSA. These are the folks they are told are a threat to 'our' way of life. We, as the traveling public, are supposed to accept this as the new normal. We are told we are suppose to take this as a price for freedom. I'm not seeing where the payoff comes in.