I think your reading of us is incorrect. I don't recall a single example of anyone arguing against BETTER security. (If you find any examples to the contrary, please post them.) What we rail against is blindly following the MORE security is better or anything for security mantras. What we get is more bureaucracy, more waste, more shady deals, more inappropriate behavior, etc. What we don't get is anything to support that security is better--much less that security is risk-based or cost effective. (If you find any examples to the contrary, please post them.)

Bigger is not better. @:-)

Your "Shut down TSA" statement seems to imply that we want no security. If that was your intent, then that is incorrect as well. In similar fashion to the bigger is not better case, I do not recall a single example of anyone suggesting that we have NO security. (If you find any examples to the contrary, please post them.) Many, like Spiff and myself, believe we should de-federalize airport security as much as possible. We have many valid reasons, but the intent is to achieve security that is cost-effective risk-based, logical, reasonable, etc. and to eliminate the political BS, empire building, fear-mongering, inappropriate behavior, etc. that come with giant self-supporting bureaucracies.

If TSA ever makes a reasonable fact-based case for for the necessity of what they do, real improvements in their effectiveness, or meaningful plans to improve the behavior of TSOs, I bet they would find a lot of support. Even here in CBPD. @:-)