Just found a comment left by the Transportation Security Administration in the post I wrote yesterday about that situation in St. Louis where a Ron Paul supporter was held and questioned because he had $4,700 in cash on him (which is roughly represented in the picture above).

From Evolution of Security:

At approximately 6:50 p.m. on March 29, 2009, a metal box alarmed the X-ray machine at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, triggering the need for additional screening. Because the box contained a number of items including a large amount of cash, all of which needed to be removed to be properly screened, it was deemed more appropriate to continue the screening process in a private area. A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee and members of the St. Louis Airport Police Department can be heard on the audio recording. The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action.

Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry.

A few things…

1. I applaud the TSA for reaching out like this and responding so quickly. And the fact that they said some of the employees were acting inappropriately is a MASSIVE shift from what we’ve seen the past several years.
2. I still would like to see what law requires passengers to answer questions about why they have cash on them. Because the officers on the tape never answered the question and this blog post doesn’t either.
3. Why would $4,700 in a metal box constitute criminal activity? I can understand if this guy was hiding it the lining of a suitcase or in his underwear, but from I’ve heard of the story, it was your basic lockbox.

So yes, there are still some questions to be answered and I still think the TSA needs to think about revising some of their policies, lest they receive an inordinate amount of backlash for incidents that never needed to happen in the first place.

As I mentioned earlier, John McCain welcomed the news that the Arizona Governor was going to take the spot at the Department of Homeland Security, but there are some who want her to stay in the state.

From New Republic:

Napolitano, a widely popular Democratic governor in a red state, has two years left in Phoenix’s executive office. During her tenure, Napolitano has broken the Right’s iron grip on both houses of the state legislature by vetoing several Republican-backed bills. [...]

Not only will Democrats lose Napolitano as a crucial ally–they will also have to contend with her constitutionally mandated successor, Secretary of State Jan Brewer, a rank-and-file Republican elected in 2002.

“The population needs to be more careful in whom they elect secretary of state,” said Democrat Marsha Arzberger, minority leader in the state senate. “I do not think she’s a leader, I do not think she’s prepared for the task, and I don’t think she has a vision in mind.” Silverman added, “She’s from the same cloth–literally, she came from the legislature–as the wing of the GOP Napolitano has battled with for years.”

This is definitely troubling for Arizona, especially if somebody who isn’t ready to be Governor gets appointed because of a line of succession. But if that’s the way it is, what else can Dems do? Oh yeah…win the election in 2010.

So buck up Arizona Dems and get a game plan. You can’t wrap up your hopes in just one person. Time to get serious and start winning back those legislature seats. Napolitano didn’t get elected by simply appealing to the far left so take a page out of playbook and start taking the state back.

The Arizona Governor came out early for Obama, and she’s certainly known as a “no bull” type of politician, so this could be a good fit.

Still, taking over the troubled DHS is not an enviable position and she’s definitely got her work cut out for her.

From Politico:

Napolitano brings law-and-order experience from her stint as the Grand Canyon State’s first female attorney general. One of the nation’s most prominent female elected officials, she made frequent appearances on behalf of Barack Obama during the campaign. She was re-elected to a second four-year term in 2006.

Transition insiders have long expected that she would be offered a Cabinet slot, although she had also been mentioned for other posts, including attorney general. [...]

In 2005, TIME magazine named her one of America’s five best governors, calling her “A Mountaineer on the Political Rise.”

Now, word is she hasn’t actually been offered the job yet, but if the reports are correct it’s more of a formality at this point and it’s a no-brainer that she’ll accept.

More as it develops…