So, at the Tucson International Airport today, I had a chance to eat at the new sports-bar thingie just off of Gate 22. Here’s what’s weird: They gave us forks to eat with. Like, real, metal forks. Beyond security. At the airport.

Am I the only one who thinks this is, um, kinda stupid?

This article appears in Dec 21-27, 2006.

22 replies on “A Forking Strange Thing”

  1. I wanted to wonder why your YouTube site has to do with any news related to Tucson whatsoever? Just toothless people?

  3. I’m pretty sure that YouTube site doesn’t have anything to do with the Tucson Weekly, Becca. “Richard” appears to have (mis)appropriated the name.

  4. Forks are OK. It’s metal knives that are banned.

    Makes about as much sense as anything else from Fatherland Security.

  5. “Am I the only one who thinks this is, um, kinda stupid?”

    Yes, you ARE the only one who thinks that’s stupid…

  6. Stupid would be a terrorist who tries to take down a plane with a fork. Or a nail clipper, or knitting needles. I know, I know, what about box cutters? Oh please that was years ago! These days we live in a time of air marshals and at least a dozen red-white-and-blue blooded Americanos willing to become heroes on any given plane. Will a plane be brought down again, for sure dude. Should we all run around with our tails between our legs? No, you pussies. You’re more likely to be killed by the jackass driving 80 on a 55. Or the methed-out red-neck with a stash of guns, who’s decided to make this his (an your) last day on this fucked up planet. And yes, the desperate Chicano-banger looking to earn his next heroin fix. Stop being such freakin’ wimps. You’re going to die.

  7. What about a spork? “Aw lookout he’s got a spork! It’s a terrorist with utensils from Taco Bell!”
    …nah.

  8. Actually, I think Jimmy’s on to something. What’s next? Possibly the sugar and salt packets? These could definitely contain radioactive material granuales.
    Thanks for making us all aware Jimmy! Maybe you’re in the wrong business.

  10. Michael: Not ‘going after’ JB. I would’ve responded the same way with anyone. Personally, I think it was a very silly statement in the first place.

    I’m sure that if (or I should say WHEN) I make an equally ‘silly’ statement, I’ll get my share of responses as well. It’s all in good, yet truthful banter…

    Bud

  11. The jab is because the statement is pretty silly considering that we still fail to properly search all cargo-baggage and that virtually anything can become a weapon as effective as dull butter knife. Inmates make shanks out of tooth brushes. Bud is right, anyone making that statement deserves the same response.
    Did you hear the one about passengers on a plane smelling something burning but when the plane is landed the FBI investigates it turns out to be farting passenger? That’s right, farting grounds a plane, farts.
    Shit, racial profiling would be more effective the banning toe clippers, or shampoo bottles.

  12. My point is that you can’t take a normal-sized bottle of shampoo on a freakin’ plane, yet you can take on a fork that could easily be used as a weapon. That, my friends, is stupid. End of story.

  13. End of story? No wonder these blogs suck so much. I gave you 3 distinct points to further the conversation.
    1. Cargo-baggage unchecked. Is this even true, or did I make that up?
    2. Racial profiling. Would racial profiling help? Anyone out there want to see racial profiling?
    3. Further your initial point. Who’s making up these stupid rules? I can make an effective weapon out of a fork. While a fork with all its prongs can barely penetrate the skin, breaking off (or bending) all but one prong makes a much more effective shank. Enough that a repeated strike to the neck or eye will ruin anyone’s day. Sheers pathetic bloggers!

  16. Having eaten at the place in question, I’d consider the food to be far more dangerous than any of their utensils, metal or plastic.

  17. Thank you Tim! Finally, some thoughtful insight 😉

    Back to the subject matter. TAKE THIS QUIZ!
    |
    In 1985, Air India Flight 182 was blown up over the Atlantic by:
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Bill O’Reilly
    c. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir
    d. Indian Sikh extremists, in retaliation for the Indian Army’s attack on the Golden Temple shrine in Amritsar
    |
    In 1986, who attempted to smuggle three pounds of explosives onto an El Al jetliner bound from London to Tel Aviv?
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Michael Smerconish
    c. Bob Mould
    d. A pregnant Irishwoman named Anne Murphy
    |
    In 1962, in the first-ever successful sabotage of a commercial jet, a Continental Airlines 707 was blown up with dynamite over Missouri by:
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Ann Coulter
    c. Henry Rollins
    d. Thomas Doty, a 34-year-old American passenger, as part of an insurance scam
    |
    In 1994, who nearly succeeding in skyjacking a DC-10 and crashing it into the Federal Express Corp. headquarters?
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Michelle Malkin
    c. Charlie Rose
    d. Auburn Calloway, an off-duty FedEx employee and resident of Memphis, Tenn.
    |
    In 1974, who stormed a Delta Air Lines DC-9 at Baltimore-Washington Airport, intending to crash it into the White House, and shot both pilots?
    a. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
    b. Joe Scarborough
    c. Spalding Gray
    d. Samuel Byck, an unemployed tire salesman from Philadelphia

  18. Jimmy: in response to your statement below…The way I see it, IF security doesn’t allow a bottle of shampoo, there must be a reason for it. My thought is, a bottle of ‘something’ may be a LOT more dangerous to a larger number of civilians than a fork. For example, if you’re a ‘terrorist’ and try taking down a pilot with a spork/fork, you’d most likely be jumped by a ban of ‘hard core and proud Americans’ (like most of us here). However, a bottle of ‘presumed shampoo’, may actually be a dangerous chemical that could effect the cabin air and kill or harm the entire plane. You should stop being so ‘silly’ about a fork/spork. I think you’re trying a little too hard to spark an issue.

    “My point is that you can’t take a normal-sized bottle of shampoo on a freakin’ plane, yet you can take on a fork that could easily be used as a weapon. That, my friends, is stupid. End of story.”

  19. Bud … you place an awful lot of trust in the Department of Homeland security: “The way I see it, IF security doesn’t allow a bottle of shampoo, there must be a reason for it.” I am sorry, but they have not earned that kind of trust, given their ineptitude with the idiot terror alert scales, the tests showing security’s just as porous as ever, etc.

  20. Jim: Actually, I don’t put a lot of trust in the dept of homeland security, in fact, I do think they’re lacking in many aspects. However, the bottle of ‘shampoo’ regulation does make sense – as my reasoning between the shampoo and spork.

    Personally, I believe in placing much more pressure on those that are responsible for security. i.e. more frequent ‘checks and balances’, random testing and demonstrations to test the systems in hand. If someone fails, it should be a major ordeal and NOT a slap on the wrist.

  21. I couldn’t resist this one. Whatever you do, don’t hide your contraband spork in your monkey’s diaper!

    Monkey Helpers
    |
    When a monkey is being transported in a carrier, the monkey must be removed from the carrier by the handler prior to screening
    The monkey must be controlled by the handler throughout the screening process.
    |
    The monkey handler should carry the monkey through the WTMD while the monkey remains on a leash.
    |
    When the handler and monkey go through the WTMD and the WTMD alarms, both the handler and the monkey must undergo additional screening.
    |
    Since monkeys may likely draw attention, the handler will be escorted to the physical inspection area where a table is available for the monkey to sit on. Only the handler will touch or interact with the monkey.
    |
    TSOs have been trained to not touch the monkey during the screening process.
    |
    TSOs will conduct a visual inspection on the monkey and will coach the handler on how to hold the monkey during the visual inspection.
    |
    The inspection process may require that the handler take off the monkey’s diaper as part of the visual inspection.
    This is the official TSA Animal Helper guidelines. Well, the monkey helpers.

  22. We are now SAFE from radical Islamo-Fascist monkey bastards! Damn those dirty apes. Those damned dirty apes.

Comments are closed.