TSA Thugs

[NEWMAN]

It happens I would rather people be interupted older or not. It sure isn't a nice way to do things.
Life goes on, one more safe airplane I can fly on. SO I can make money to pay for your SS later on.

 

[public servant]

Unfortunately, the TSA manages to take away what I want while only giving the illusion of giving you what you want.

While no system is perfect or fool proof, I'll take this one over your system of doing nothing.

As I said, were it up to me to ensure the safety of my family and friends, I'd prefer to see armed military handling the job.

And as Jeremy stated, "You want to feel safe in an airport/airplane go to Germany or Israel". It's coming....society ensures it.

 

[techres]

While no system is perfect or fool proof, I'll take this one over your system of doing nothing.

As I said, were it up to me to ensure the safety of my family and friends, I'd prefer to see armed military handling the job.

And as Jeremy stated, "You want to feel safe in an airport/airplane go to Germany or Israel". It's coming....society ensures it.

And I have NEVER heard of an El Al flyer of any extended age being pulled from her wheelchair and frisked by the armed guards of El Al. NEVER. Do they search pregnant women at palestinian checkpoints? Sure, because those kids of attacks have happened. When my sister in law went to Israel the security was not like ours. I would never expect Zeidy or Bubby to be yanked from a wheelchair to get on a plane. Never.

El Al has basic sense and real security. We have the opposite.

 

[dburkhead]

It happens I would rather people be interupted older or not. It sure isn't a nice way to do things.
Life goes on, one more safe airplane I can fly on. SO I can make money to pay for your SS later on.

So you're using the paying of one type of SS later as the excuse for having another type of SS now. Well, whatever works for you.

 

[Prometheus]

And I have NEVER heard of an El Al flyer of any extended age being pulled from her wheelchair and frisked by the armed guards of El Al. NEVER. Do they search pregnant women at palestinian checkpoints? Sure, because those kids of attacks have happened. When my sister in law went to Israel the security was not like ours. I would never expect Zeidy or Bubby to be yanked from a wheelchair to get on a plane. Never.

El Al has basic sense and real security. We have the opposite.

+1

People in this country live in such fear it isn't even funny anymore. They think there is a terrorist hiding under every piece of carry on luggage or bottle of evian.

Beware the boogey man!

 

[4sarge]

And I have NEVER heard of an El Al flyer of any extended age being pulled from her wheelchair and frisked by the armed guards of El Al. NEVER. Do they search pregnant women at Palestinian checkpoints? Sure, because those kids of attacks have happened. When my sister in law went to Israel the security was not like ours. I would never expect Zeidy or Bubby to be yanked from a wheelchair to get on a plane. Never.

El Al has basic sense and real security. We have the opposite.

Wrong Again - What you are suggesting would require common sense, logic and basic principles of security and we must never, confuse or expect our government to practice those principles. Take Scissors Away

for Techres

 

[dburkhead]

While no system is perfect or fool proof, I'll take this one over your system of doing nothing.

I'm not surprised.

Yet, strangely enough, when one looks for evidence that things have actually improved over "doing nothing" (which is not what I've advocated. Personal responsibility is not the same as "doing nohting) the cupboard is mighty bare.

As I said, were it up to me to ensure the safety of my family and friends, I'd prefer to see armed military handling the job.

My major difference is that I'd rather see the armed militia handling the job.

The military comes in three basic kinds of forces: Show forces, Field forces, and regime protection forces. Well described here, from which I excerpt:

"There are, essentially, three types of forces in the world," Mike said, picking his words carefully. "Field forces, regime protection forces and show forces. Show forces are very good at parading. They are trained to look good, pretty much period. Some excellent combat units are also good at showing off, don't get me wrong. The Rhodesian Selous Scouts were bloody peacocks and marched better than the Coldstream Guards. But show forces are only there for show.



"Next, there are regime protection forces," Mike said, trying not to look at the Chief of Staff of the Georgian army. "Regime protection forces are, essentially, very large police forces. They are trained to suppress resistance to the regime, to break up riots, to ferret out guerillas and so forth. They're, really, peacekeeping forces in countries where peace is shaky. Due to the nature of their training, they're very good at coups. They're used to moving to specific places in cities and, for example, taking over broadcast stations or buildings that are important to a coup.


"Last, there are field armies. Field armies are designed to meet other forces on the field of battle and defeat them. That can be small unit or large unit, but that is their training. They may march well and they may be able to occasionally be used to keep the peace, but they're not fundamentally trained for either. Field armies are designed to destroy other forces and when used in a coup tend to break much more than they should. They also make various mistakes, like firing into crowds indiscriminately, that make the succeeding regime, even if the coup is successful, very unpopular. The vast majority of the American army is field forces. The only units that are not are Civil Affairs and MPs."

There is a reason that Posse Commitatus is law and why people are concerned about violations of it. Converting the US Military in any significant way from a Field Force to an extension of the police is to convert it to one trained as a "Regime Protection Force." Oh, it wouldn't be called that, and it may not start out functioning as one, but at Madeline Albright said "what's the good of having this large military if we don't use it?"

That "regime protection forces" are also the one's most prone to coups, because their training is the most suited to the kinds of action needed to pull off a successful coup, shouldn't bother us either--for a while at least.

And as Jeremy stated, "You want to feel safe in an airport/airplane go to Germany or Israel". It's coming....society ensures it.

I'm sure that if we crush liberty enough we can feel quite safe, well, so long as you're not one the government decides to oppress today. Who knows, it might even lead to being safe, although evidence to date of these restrictions having that effect is mighty slim.

It's cheap too. All it costs is our soul as a society. We merely have to give up even the pretense of being a free nation. That's not such a large price to pay, is it? Surely not. Those who object to loss of liberty are just reactionaries who don't understand that the eggs of liberty must be broken if we're to have the omlet of security, right? Who could possibly object?

One thing I've noticed about many law enforcement officers (not all, but enough to produce a noticeable trend, at least among many vocal LEO's). There's a strong tendency to think in terms of what makes their job "easier" or "safer" and a tendency to set aside consideration for the rights of the people they are supposed to be serving.

The first question about any law shouldn't be "does it make law enforcement easier" or "does it make being a LEO safer" or even "does it make the 'average citizen' safer" but "does it preserve the rights and liberty of American Citizens." That last one trumps all the others, individually or combined.

You want to make things safer? Fine. I'm all for that. But find a way to do it that does not destroy the liberties that are at the heart of the United States of America.

 

[techres]

You want to make things safer? Fine. I'm all for that. But find a way to do it that does not destroy the liberties that are at the heart of the United States of America.

Bingo!

 

[NEWMAN]

guess in my 20k miles in the past 2 months, and a fully stamped Passports I've never seen TSA dick things up. Nor other airports not using TSA. I have seen people refused to enter due to guns.knifes and even a walking stick sword.lol

You must have won the lottery that day. lol

You people need to get out more instead of living in the basement sceeming up government plots against you. Seriously go feel the sun outside, take a trip. Hell even go for a walk.

 

[dburkhead]

guess in my 20k miles in the past 2 months, and a fully stamped Passports I've never seen TSA dick things up. Nor other airports not using TSA. I have seen people refused to enter due to guns.knifes and even a walking stick sword.lol

You must have won the lottery that day. lol

You people need to get out more instead of living in the basement sceeming up government plots against you. Seriously go feel the sun outside, take a trip. Hell even go for a walk.

Um, what? Because you didn't see it personall, that means it doesn't happen? In 20K miles, how many airports did you stop at, for how long a period of time were you around the security area? Now divide that into all the airports and all the time the security areas are "open" to see just how small a sample that 20K miles actually is.

Last time I traveled (to my mother's funeral, sad to say, a couple of months ago) there was a sign that with the coming of full-body X-rays people would no longer need to take their jackets off. Excuse me? I'm supposed to be glad at still more intrusive procedures because they will supersede a less intrusive procedure? And is this a good thing for frequent travelers? In small doses, X-rays aren't harmful. That annual exam, the period dental X-rays, etc. are no problem. But there's a reason that the people who work in those places leave the room before taking the X-ray. The occassional dose, no problem. But repeated, frequent doses add up (and this is on top of the fact that flying increases one's radiation exposure anyway).

I don't have to "dream up" government plots. All I have to do is watch the news and listen to the promises/plans/goals of existing politicians and they'll hand them to me.

As an exercise, take a handful of speeches by Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, or Clinton. Replace the references to "the rich" with references to "Jews." See if there isn't a horrifying familarity to them.

One of the things that makes the vilest of atrocities possible is the tendency of so many people to disbelief. They can't imagine it happening and, therefore, aren't on guard to prevent it.

Economics has been called "the dismal science" but I think the people who call it that are wrong. The true dismal science is history because the one thing it teaches is that there are no final answers. Most everything folk would like to try to make a "better tomorrow" have been tried before, with less than stellar success.

Often enough, when I've pointed out problems with someone's suggested solution, they respond with "well, what's your answer?" Usually, I don't have one for the simple reason that I'm not so sure that there is an answer. It has been said that "peace is an ideal whose existence we surmise because there have been intervals between wars." It may well be that "liberty is an ideal whose existence we infer because their have been intervals between oppressions." We've had a rather longer interval in this country than most. Perhaps we can keep the interval running a bit longer. And perhaps we can keep the oppression short and get back to a new interval. But guarantees of freedom forever and ever amen? Sorry, I'm not in the business of guarantees.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Folks....do we not recall that on the morning of September 11, 2001, 2,794 innocent people died when 19 terrorists hijacked 4 aircraft and used them as killing machines? While I understand that seeing an elderly woman searched before boarding an aircraft is not pleasant....do you really not see the necessity in it?

Let me assure you that wheelchairs have many places to hide weapons....from ice picks to handguns....and I'm sure explosives. And if I'm hell bent on bringing down an aircraft or commandeering one to fly into another building to make a political statement....what better mule for weapons to be later commanded by a terrorist group than the elderly. "Hey mom, how would you like to fly to Vegas with me?" I firmly believe the next group of terrorists to strike U.S. soil won't necessarily have dark hair and eyes or come from the Middle East. Let me assure you that I've seen more than one frail looking person sitting in a wheel chair get up and run like a jack rabbit....and have personally pulled a concealed firearm from a wheelchair. I'm not saying she could have, or would have....but metal detectors do nothing when used to search a metal object. At that point it's hands on to be sure.

While I do sincerely sympathize....I urge you to see the necessity in it. Imagine your displeasure and grief if your wife or child were on a flight blown up by a terrorist that was not thoroughly checked by those charged with the task.

I do agree however, that a private security company should not be left with the task of seeing the skies are safe. If it were up to me that task would have been left to the U.S. military. Any member of such a team that doesn't do his or her job thoroughly or professionally should be fired on the spot. If your only complaint is the manner in which the lady was "handled", I urge you to contact TSA and complain. If your complaint is that how could they search such a frail, older lady....I really don't think the complaint is valid.

I remember. They had box cutters-small metal sliding devices with a little bitty razor blade corner exposed at the end... and with the exception of Flight 93, no one did anything. By the way, yes: Metal devices, which either were ignored at the metal detector or didn't pass through it in the first place. All that "security" (though less than what we have now, and yes, the quotes are intentional and sarcastic) and yet the box cutters still got through.

I don't doubt your integrity, public servant, nor that you are being truthful about the runner in the wheelchair or the ability to stash weapons in a chair, but really? feeling up an old lady's ass? Do they cavity-search nuns and check baby diapers for C-4, too?

You want real security? Stop forbidding good, honest citizens from carrying. Hell, for that matter, encourage those folks to carry by giving them 15% off the price of their ticket with a valid LTCH/CCW/whatever. When the only thugs around know that there's a distinct possibility that any crime they commit will be met by a hail of lead; when a potential hijacker knows that once his ass is overpowered, he's likely to be tied up and have his throat slit right there in First Class with his own knife and his body wrapped in a blanket to be delivered to a coroner on landing, you'll have security. Until then, it's all just shoe-removing ******** playacting by a bunch of wannabe holster sniffers to make people feel safe when they are not.

"Security" <snort> It'd be comical if it wasn't so damn tragic.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am upset because it has come to this in the US
But Public Servant is right , A bad man could very easily hide a weapon, explosives , drugs You name it in a wheel chair making the elderly lady a mule if You will
I cant fault TSA workers for doing there jobs
I want Myself and Loved ones to be safe when on a flight
If it happens that someone has used a wheelchair to smuggle explosives thru a checkpoint onto a plane and that plane is destroyed then everyone will be complaining the TSA didnt do there job

There is a story about a man on the witness stand. The deputy prosecutor is cross-examining him and she says, "How can you say you're innocent? Did you not have the tools for burglary on you at the time of your arrest?"

And the man replied, "You, madame, have on you all the tools necessary to be a prostitute right here in this courtroom!"

While humorous, the point, to me, is clear: In a free society, we do not punish peaceable, law-abiding, honest citizens for the acts of those who meet none of those criteria. You might be using your computer to commit identity theft or securities fraud, but until you do, we cannot have you punished for those crimes. A person might enter a theater and yell "Fire!", but we do not insist on his being gagged or his vocal cords removed prior to entering.

In law, this is called "prior restraint", and it's not legal to do it. That doesn't stop it, of course, any more than laws against theft stop burglaries, but when a government is not bound by the society's laws, who is?

It all comes back, for me, to Mr. Franklin's quote: "They who can give up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." I might add that they will have neither as well.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[NEWMAN]

just because you heard about it means its happened?

I bet you watch Fox news also.

 

[dburkhead]

just because you heard about it means its happened?

I bet you watch Fox news also.

Now that's one of the weaker arguments you've presented, and is just the flip side of the denial of anything you've not personally experienced. Ever been in an earthquake? Typhoon? Hurricane? Tornado? Ever seen a meteor land? Were you present at Dachau or Buchenwald? Did you personally see the Soviet Gulags? The Japanese Americans interned at "relocation camps"? Have you ever been in or witnessed an airplane crash? A train crash? A ship sinking?

I'm pretty sure that at least some of those things, and many more, are things you haven't personally seen and, therefore, are things you have only "heard about." And yet, strangely enough, I don't see you arguing about them as things that "just because you heard about it means it happens?"

The tales of the TSA come from multiple independent sources. Amazing thing the "information age." We have Al Gore being selected for "extra screening" and laughing it off as the "price of security." (Doesn't everybody expect a former Vice President of the United States to be carrying explosives?) We have mothers being ordered to drink, not just sample but drink to the dregs (as it were) their children's formula. We have medal of honor winners being harassed over The Medal because it "might be used as a weapon" (confirmed as true by Snopes despite Snopes' left wing bias when the "urban legend" is of a political bent). These go far beyond "hearing about" things happening.

Then there's the actual official policies themselves. Nail clippers? Can you say with a straight face that banning nail clippers does anything, anything at all, to make flying "safer"? Then there's the vague wording of what's permitted and what's prohibited (check out the actual regs) that leaves the decision in many cases essentially up to the "judgement" of the "screeners." So you don't even know what might be prohibited when you get up there. "Can be used as a weapon"? Do you have any idea how much territory that covers? Got anything heavy in your carry on? Bludgeoning weapon. Got anything with a strap, or are you wearing a belt? Strangling weapons. Or they are if the TSA agents decide they are. Oh, and you are aware that based on that TSA agent's "judgement" you can be assessed very stiff fines for attempting to bring contraband through security. Like with the guns in school zones law in Indiana, this is a "crime" of strict liability. There's no requirement for "intent."

Feeling better now? Well, consider that a failed attempt to use explosives in shoes led to this bit of taking ones shoes off every time you go through security. And a failed attempt to bring liquid binary explosives onto an airplane led to the ban on bringing liquids. With that history, what do you think will happen when somebody uses body packing (look it up if you don't know what it means) to smuggle explosives through security? Endoscopic examination of the entire GI tract (which will only be about 10 times as extensive as the average colonoscopy)? Exploratory surgery on all passengers? Or just have passengers arrive 24 hours in advance so they can be completely flushed out with laxatives before boarding the plane? Where does it end?

None of this came my way from Fox News, BTW--about the only channel's we watch on TV around here are Boomerang, Nickelodian, and TV Japan (my wife's Japanese). However, regarding your "Fox News" crack, I refer you to: Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Joe Williams]

Folks....do we not recall that on the morning of September 11, 2001, 2,794 innocent people died when 19 terrorists hijacked 4 aircraft and used them as killing machines? While I understand that seeing an elderly woman searched before boarding an aircraft is not pleasant....do you really not see the necessity in it?
snip.

No. There is no necessity in it. It is ineffective security, pure and simple. In fact, it is pretend security. What TSA does, with their substandard employes and security procedures generated by committees with ZERO security expertise, is provide a placebo for the frightened and ignorant. Their measures are ridiculously easy to bypass, the procedures they follow actually impede security instead of enhancing it. The security is provided by the passengers, who will never allow another hijacking.

And, with a background in security ranging from protecting nuclear weapons to Air Force One, I've got the expertise to back up what I'm saying.

 

[BE Mike]

Joe Williams- First of all, thank you for your service, I appreciate your sacrifice. I do however think you are comparing apples and oranges when comparing the guarding of nuclear weapons and Air Force Presidential Aircraft to airport terminal security. The former has no public access, while the latter has unrestricted public access. I haven't traveled via commercial air since 9/11 but would think that it would be a royal pain in the neck or maybe 3 feet lower. One problem with security, either border security (an impossibility) or airport security (another insurmountable task) is that these programs are directed by bureaucrats who just want to build their little empires and retire at the highest grade possible. The grunts who do the work are just doing their jobs as has been proscribed by a lot of folks in much higher pay grades. Are the TSA folks doing a job that could be done better? Sure. Is there a better way to do it? No doubt. Have there been any other sucessful hijackings since TSA took over? No. They must not be doing everything wrong.

As to the OP, I'm sure that the TSA grunts might have been able to handle the task a little more delicately than described, but I'm certain that they didn't decide that it would be a lot of fun to hassle an old lady in a wheelchair. Every time I do anything, if I Monday morning quarterback myself, I can find room for improvement. Those of you who can tell what a criminal, terrorist or accomplice looks like belong in the highest levels of CIA or FBI. It could save us a whole lot of money, time and trouble having you protect the country.

It does get a little tiresome to have some of you nitpick everyone's else's jobs, from the person who takes your order at Mickey D's, to the cop on the beat. Nobody is perfect. Give it a rest. Now when you get pepper sprayed at Walmart by the checkout person because you got mad that she asked you what you were going to shoot that .22 ammo in, then by all means, I want to hear you whine. I can always use a good laugh.

 

[jeremy]

I don't think many of us are asking for to much from the TSA. We damn sure do not expect perfection from a government alphabet agency. What we do expect and probably should demand should be competence, compassion, and common sense!

YMMV!

 

[dburkhead]

Joe Williams- First of all, thank you for your service, I appreciate your sacrifice. I do however think you are comparing apples and oranges when comparing the guarding of nuclear weapons and Air Force Presidential Aircraft to airport terminal security. The former has no public access, while the latter has unrestricted public access. I haven't traveled via commercial air since 9/11 but would think that it would be a royal pain in the neck or maybe 3 feet lower. One problem with security, either border security (an impossibility) or airport security (another insurmountable task) is that these programs are directed by bureaucrats who just want to build their little empires and retire at the highest grade possible. The grunts who do the work are just doing their jobs as has been proscribed by a lot of folks in much higher pay grades. Are the TSA folks doing a job that could be done better? Sure. Is there a better way to do it? No doubt. Have there been any other sucessful hijackings since TSA took over? No. They must not be doing everything wrong.

And which ones have they stopped? The fallacy you are engaging in here is post hoc ergo propter hoc, "after this, therefore because of this."

The line about "bureaucrats who just want to build little empires and retire at the highest grade possible may be a reason why the system is broken, but neither does it excuse it nor does it make it any less broken.

As for "just doing their jobs" that's just another way of saying "just following orders." Sorry, that line doesn't work.

As to the OP, I'm sure that the TSA grunts might have been able to handle the task a little more delicately than described, but I'm certain that they didn't decide that it would be a lot of fun to hassle an old lady in a wheelchair. Every time I do anything, if I Monday morning quarterback myself, I can find room for improvement. Those of you who can tell what a criminal, terrorist or accomplice looks like belong in the highest levels of CIA or FBI. It could save us a whole lot of money, time and trouble having you protect the country.

This has been floating around for quite some time:

Do you remember?

In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Lenno
c. Harry Potter
d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1972, at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

During the 1980's, a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying
to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s
women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take
out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the
US Pentagon, and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 2004, Spain railway bombings:
a. Chicanos
b. Chiquita Banana
c. Horacio Equizel
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 2005, 2005 London Railway bombings:
a. The Beatles
b. The Luftwaffe
c. Youth groups
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Nope ... I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.

They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, Medal of Honor winners, and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone because of profiling.

From: politically incorrect IQ test for leftists

It does get a little tiresome to have some of you nitpick everyone's else's jobs, from the person who takes your order at Mickey D's, to the cop on the beat. Nobody is perfect. Give it a rest. Now when you get pepper sprayed at Walmart by the checkout person because you got mad that she asked you what you were going to shoot that .22 ammo in, then by all means, I want to hear you whine. I can always use a good laugh.

The person at Mickey D's or Walmart does not have government authority to run roughshod over the rights of individuals in this country. They don't have government sanction for dehumanizing and humiliating individuals who just want to travel from one point to another for whatever reason.

If someone in the public employ finds having the public to whom they are ultimately responsible questioning the conduct of their employ tiresome, there is a simple answer: find less public employment. I, after all, have to answer to the clients and to my boss for the conduct of my job. Why should someone in the public sector object to the same scrutiny?

 

[dburkhead]

I don't think many of us are asking for to much from the TSA. We damn sure do not expect perfection from a government alphabet agency. What we do expect and probably should demand should be competence, compassion, and common sense!

YMMV!

We also, I would think, have a right to expect that they do not stomp on our rights and the Constitution with manure covered, hobnail boots.

 

[NEWMAN]

at least your funny to read.
You seem to know just about everything about anything. Should you have gone into teaching? Politics?
Just wondering you speak like the ones you preach about.

Just for shits and giggles when is the last time you went for a flight or left the counrty?