What about poor Scott Pruitt and his delicate security detail?

Scott Pruitt with snowflake superimposedApparently snowflakes melt and fade away when they can’t stand the heat.

“But Barnet said that Pruitt’s travels grew so tense that by May the agent in charge of his security detail recommended he travel in first class when possible. “We felt that based on the recommendation from the team leader, the special agent in charge, that it would be better suited to have him in business or first class, away from close proximity from those individuals who were approaching him and being extremely rude, using profanities and potential for altercations and so forth,” he said.”

I like nitpicking about words. It’s the nerd in me.

Wouldn’t something have to pose reasonable threat to commit a crime for it to be a security threat? I mean, assaulting someone is criminal. I don’t want someone to threaten Pruitt, e.g., “I’m gonna bust your lip!” might be earnest, even deserved, but also completely not recommended. Battering would certainly be a breach of his security. That’s where the lip busting happens. Beyond that there’s attempted murder and murder. This doesn’t even approach that.

Does yelling an opinion at a government official count as a possible security threat? If yelling opinions at people likely leads to imminent harm, wouldn’t most of our protests and political rallies be bloodbaths by now? The occasional thing happens, and that’s bad, but on that comparatively tiny, tiny basis, can we reasonably assume a likelihood of security breach?

At worst, we might be talking about harassment. Maybe, but I doubt it. Let me check my top-flight legal source, Wikipedia (yeah, that’s a funny):

“Harassment, under the laws of the United States, is defined as any repeated or continuing un-consented contact that serves no useful purpose beyond creating alarm, annoyance, or emotional distress.”

That’s probably disputable. Go ahead. Dispute.

Aside from my source, there’s a couple of problems with that. We don’t know if the insults flung at Snowflake Pruitt were repeated and continuing.

I might even disagree that the insults so flung at him serve no useful purpose beyond “creating alarm, annoyance, or emotional distress.” Hell, even Pruitt’s hell-begotten policies serve more useful purposes beyond that, if one counts corporate profit at the expense of public health and stewardship of the environment as a purpose. I would think that the opprobrium is conceivably well deserved, and that the useful purpose of the insults is the expression of free speech in the absence of a genuine right to redress of grievances. Ever try to exercise that right? I hope you have money. Lots of it. Lawyers aren’t free. And good luck with that standing thing. I hear it’s a real pip.

I’m not even seeing this as harassment, in that case. Just as well. Poor, delicate Pruitt has the great fortune of living in AMGA (America Made Great Again), you know, like it was before 1964.

“In 1964, the United States Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which prohibited discrimination at work on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin and sex. This later became the legal basis for early [emphasis mine] harassment law.”

Wait, early? 1964 was early? Of course it was! This is AMGA, and was always intended to be AMGA, where other people’s right to the peaceable enjoyment of liberties like going out in public, working, and existing just ain’t a thing.

It’s almost like humans don’t need 600 years of blackface, capped with a final 100 year season of taking it to an artform, to realize they suck.

So. No assault. No battery. No murder, or attempts at it. No harassment.

Just poor, poor Pruitt’s delicate feelings and a security team that’s apparently afraid to do its job. I say that because I think it’s entirely possible Pruitt has pissed off someone enough to cross the line from opining vigorously as allowed by law to harassment or disturbing the peace, or mopery with intent to gawk. If the big scary men in cheap suits can’t restrain an angry hippie long enough for TSA agents to bring the hippy into the back for a rectal psych exam, what threat are they capable of handling?

Does “security” really imply just shielding him from the opinions of those who think he governs incompetently at best, maliciously at worst? What kind of snowflake needs that kind of protection? By that logic, didn’t Joe Wilson pose a security threat to Obama when he yelled, “you lie!” from across a crowded room? He might have been about to start some Wilkes-Booth cosplay for all we know.

Of course not. This is just stupid.

Don’t agree too quickly, either. It’s a trap.

How consistent do we tend to be when it comes to putting up barriers to things on the basis of the proportionately tiny risk associated with them? If you want a wall, it only take a tiny number of illegals to justify it, but other tiny numbers don’t count. Just yours. If you want a gun ban of some sort, it only takes a super-small percentage of gun owners to indict the lot of ’em as suspicious for not immediately agreeing to a ban. Other tiny numbers don’t count. Just yours.

Tiny numbers? That one illegal just shot a person! Tiny numbers? That one gun nut just killed 17 kids! Tiny numbers, someone just hurt Pruitt’s feelings and made his security detail stain their armpits.

Apparently part of being an American is a willingness to impose one’s values on everybody else because of some tiny number we find important that the other side doesn’t, and that means the other side is bad.

That person opining vigorously at me must be horrible enough that I fear…what? Surrounded by a security detail, on a plane with an air marshall, probably with an armed pilot. We are talking about the same kind of flying aluminum tube people get arrested on all the time for things like needing to pee at the wrong time, right?

Why, with all that security, one might think gossamer-spined Pruitt might just be one of the safest damned people on the planet. But his security team doesn’t think he’s safe enough.

Tell me again why teachers should be armed.

Who are you to say security is more important than freedom?
Who are you to say freedom is more important than security?

I didn’t say I have answers. I just think most people don’t have enough questions.

PS: I haven’t forgotten the maybe nefarious, maybe not forces at Hamilton 68. I’m just working the latest headplague out of my system at the moment and can only spare this much thought.