We're doing a community meeting with the candidates either tonight or tomorrow. I am not beyond embarrassing them in public, if I can make the meeting.

Sometimes the other option is no better, i.e., a major for profit hospital company found guilty for Medicare/Medicaid fraud and the owner is now running for public office. "I did not know what was happening." was his claim then, and now he is making similar remarks for a new company he owns which is under investigation for fraudulent billing charges.

Writing rep wouldn't do any good.

So, I met his competition at a campaign event. This hopeful was fully aware of the problems with TSA frontline. He is a retired airline captain, who got so fed up with them that he got FFDO training to bypass them.

I also discussed with him Firebug's position that hardened borders with Canada was equally important as allowing paramilitaries cross the southern border without hindrance in that we might stop the illegal exportation of a pizza to Canada, and that unlimited warrantless, ever increasing searches of persons and possessions crossing the border, constant testing of limits was the general philosophy of CBP/DHS.

What he was not aware was how big a CF the whole of DHS is. I pointed out some of the wonders of the 100 mile zone and the rousting of pax on the Lake Shore Ltd, from Chicago to NYC. He was completely unaware of these events. He will likely be reading FT/TSS as he specifically asked for a source for this data. I told him I had no specific source, but this was a good place to get aggragated information, albeit possibly biased against DHS/TSA.

It might be that the best way to get the message out is to go to the opponents of the present sitting congressmen and spread the word this way, during the election season.

That being said, these are people running for political office...not saying they're politicians, though....

Well, heavily biased information, some based in fact, some based in rumor and innuendo. But I would take anything a person running for office says with a really big grain of salt. People make all sorts of grandiose statements and claims when they are trying to get elected. Once they get elected, those statements more often than not are forgotten about 2 minutes after they are sworn in.

And the effect of the personal visit is enhanced by bringing friends with torches and pitchforks who stand outside and chant "Bring out the monster!"

Sadly I think we are nearing that point.

Congress is out of touch with the public.

.... it's not because Congress is out of touch with the public that "we are nearing that point". The American public which is angry is angry because they themselves are (a) largely out of touch with other segments of the American public; and/or (b) want to be out of touch with other segments of the American public; and/or (c) don't believe in the utility of being "led" except by the like-mindedly angry. The result is that Congress is largely incapacitated and unwilling to lead -- and the problem gets worse as the committee staff increasingly becomes the divided domain of the "faithful" for the "faithful".

I submit that it's NOT Congress' role to lead, but rather to follow the desires of the electorate. We've gotten ourselves into this mess with DHS and the TSA precisely because elected representatives have failed to hold them accountable to either the citizens OR the Constitution.

"Dear Leader" may have a role to "lead", but not congress. If Congress is doing it's job, we wouldn't have the unwarranted trampling of rights that we see today. Is there any need for police or an administrative agency such as TSA to operate in paramilitary fashion?

I see where you are coming from, but Congress fails to assert itself against near-permanent hack-leviathans inside government and beyond government that feed on government action/inaction because there is such limited willingness in Congress to lead and risk a return to a life not involving government. For those elected, it's politically safer to not rock the boat too much than rock it a lot, which is why there is no willingness to step out from beyond the notion of operating within the boundaries of polls [and the consequence on the election process, primaries included] and the desires of various hacks in the near-permanent establishment that feeds on government in some way or another to maintain power.

There's always been a sort of natural conflict upon whether or not the role of elected officials is to directly represent the constituents or is to independently apply judgment decision power for the constituents. If it was purely about direct representation of constituents, we might as well have a lot more popular referendums and have it applicable to every legislative item since we have the technology to do that if the desire is there for that. [I just wouldn't count on the political or bureaucratic classes and their feeder-ons in and beyond government to really make that happen, regardless of whatever public pronouncements may be made for or against such a transition.]

Until a lot more in Congress -- staff included -- are willing to risk their jobs by leading rather than following, change in this regard is going to remain one very uphill battle. The Courts are the hope until the excesses get far greater than they are already.

What you're talking about is courage to do the right thing as opposed to leadership. I agree that Congress, in particular the rank-and-file, doesn't stand up and take charge.

I'd go so far as to say that any number of them would easily pass a TSA "enhanced" grope because there's nothing to squeeze in their groin.