At the risk of getting OT, Godwin's law simply states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. (Edited to Add: Agree with the rest of Fredd's comments 100%. To compare anyone that is not a genocidal maniac to Hitler or the Nazis is a disgusting slap in the face to those whose families have been affected by such atrocities. TSA has a lot of issues, but I don't see genocidal maniacs at the WTMD or in their office in DC. Such claims really have no place in rational discussion.)

More on topic, the anti-TSA crowd would likely find they would make more progress by being a little more rational in their style and, as Jon Stewart championed, "taking it down a notch." Treason? Really? Is that where this debate really is? I almost never participate in TS/S any more because it's gotten so extreme. It used to be somewhat informative and useful. (I suppose that may speak to FT at large, sadly.)

I hate being groped and find TSA policies and procedures a horrible, unnecessary invasion of privacy, but I also know the moderate crowd doesn't pay much attention to extreme zealots. I find the name-calling uncalled for at times, and at other times just silly. "Smurfs" is funny. But "clerks"? Come on now... clerks do clerical work. What's wrong with "screeners"?

In fact, what's wrong with rational discussion that doesn't so often visit either extreme?

Point 1: I have been on this board for a while and the worse I see them being called is Clerks or Tub Stackers.

Point 2: Yes, some posters consider them traitors. Read the constitution. Make your own mind up.

Point 3: If you are unhappy on FT the solution is at your fingertips. Stop typing in the URL into your web browser. Dont go away angry, just go away.

Terminabliss sneered at my assessment of the need for body searches when I pointed out there's been not one suicide bombing in the US. "Are YOU in the intelligence community?" Because it's impossible to say this without being in the IC. I won't miss him.

TB, please continue to lurk and jump in once in awhile. You make good points, present them in well reasoned ways and have self control that makes many of the TSA posters here look like raving loonies. I also have dropped off the radar for a bit and remain lurking and posting from time to time. I find that when I get to a point that the folks here get to an unreasonable point - I just stop posting because it is counterproductive. There are many here that oppose the regulations or actions of the agency - that is entirely within their rights. There are those that paint the members of the agency with a broad and ugly brush, and by doing so, completely detract from their valid points. Being told by small minded or mean-spirited people to suffer, do things that are anatomically impossible for most of us, or other nonsense is not the reason to leave. It is a reason to take a step back, and re-evaluate your interactions. I thank you for your service, both in the military and for the agency and hope you will reconsider and at least hang around commenting from time to time. Take care brother and safe travels to you as well.

^^^

I try to engage and discuss, I really do. I offer reasoned arguments with probing questions. I seek to learn the positions of those with whom I debate and seek to adjust my my own understanding if I am found to be incorrect in some fact or opinion or assertion. It is the way I learn and become smarter, if not more intelligent. I am hoping, against the odds it seems, that those with whom I am engaging are in the same pursuit.

As is often the case, the debate is not so much a debate as a discussion with a 4th grader at recess. The responses are not so much counter arguments and proposal for consideration, but taunts and provocations. To these I respond poorly, so I usually back away from the keyboard, grab a glass of juice out of the fridge, maybe even do some real work and come back. I can then turn on my ignore function without feeling that I have failed to defend myself and protect my integrity.

I once wrote a long post in response to one of our resident TSA folks. He replied. I hit the quote function to reply to him and since it left out all of my carefully thought out and I hoped reasoned discussion, all I could see were the responses:

It took an hour to calm down.

And I wrote this:

That was one of the most difficult posts to write that I have ever written. But, in the end it was the right one.

While I don't possess an IC agency badge, I have routine access to relevant information, and have been in the room countless times when the IC briefs policy level bodies with supervisory authority over aviation security and security in general, since 9/11.

A significant amount of what some of our resident TSO's and their defenders claim is simply not backed up by the facts, and TSA's current treatment of passengers as the greatest threat to aviation security is not supported by the facts. DHS and TSA know this, and yet they maintain their Security Theater because at this point, they can't go to Congress and say "we goofed."

If there is a successful attack on a commercial aircraft from "under the wing" - and sadly, there probably will be - all of this will eventually come out. Unfortunately, innocent people will pay for this with their lives, but hey, protecting DHS and TSA is more important, right? :rolleyes:

Obviously you do not pay attention very closely, I found the following references to TSOs or TSA personnel in 1 thread here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...n-payback.html

"suing these a&&hats PERSONALLY, since they've violated their own procedures."

"I cannot imagine seeing my wife or child, or any person I care about, mind-raped in this shameless and hideous manner by these total swine."

"OK Pissy, lets see you explain this incident to the American Public!"

"There is a reason why Pissy wants armed TSOs with arrest powers. Not to mention airport gestapo in certain facilities"

"Perhaps, Pisser needs to make another call with a personal apology"

"If you are referring to Jabba the Hut, it was a she."

I am quite certain that with about 5 minnutes of really digging, I can find Nazi, brownshirt, fascist and a number of other personal insults towards individuals. This was a valid point made by TB.

IIRC it was a reference to the tyranny of the clerks (qv.) which gave rise to that particular epithet, and I concur with the tyranny aspect. I agree, call them screeners, that's what they are; that's all they are. (Don't know why Firefox insists 'screeners' isn't a word though. :confused: )

I also believe that some supervisors and/or managers are intimidated by the very people (screeners) they are supposed to be overseeing. Call it peer pressure, laziness, "team spirit" or whatever but it takes a bit of intestinal fortitude to call out your subordinates on a regular basis. Something which is lacking in a number of cases.

heres another name to try on for size... thieves. your shower helped themselves to some items from my shrinkwrapped checked luggage and until i recieve an apology and confirmation in writing that the guilty party is fired and incarcerated i shall continue to regard all tsa clerks the same as they view the travelling public... guilty, never to be proven innocent

cry me a river....

TB, if you are still reading, sorry to see you no longer feel comfortable here.

I've had the same experience myself. I went to the TSA blog with an open mind, thinking finally there would be a slim chance to get explanations, answers, a rational give-and-take.

Instead I found an exchange deliberately moderated to allow alleged TSA employees to routinely mislead, misinform and insult members of the public. In particular, I got really tired of alleged TSA employees saying everything would go smoothly at the airport if people would just read the webpage and follow the information posted there.

Presumably the same employees who routinely denied the accuracy, currency and applicability of the webpage information.

I saw a pervasive feeling of 'us vs. them' on the website.

I went there in good faith. I left. I didn't bother to make a farewell post chastising Bob for allowing vitriolic posts from users who alleged to be TSA employees, ie, de facto representatives of the organization. I didn't bother to point out that I felt insulted by condescending, misleading and lying posts made by Bob himself. I didn't bother to respond in kind, but I certainly understood and sympathized with the frustration of the pax posters who did so.

You would like to see FT 'self-police'. I'd like to see the members of your organization do the same, on the blog, here, and at the checkpoints. We'd all be better off.

Hmmm! Wasn't it your agency's administrator, who just last week, determined that once airline and airport employees had been given get out of the nude-o-scope free cards, the TSA could now concentrate on the rest of us, since we were all the "potential terrorists"?
Your agency's brush is far more broad and far more ugly.

As for TB... Buh-bye.

I agree with you that there are several instances where the conversation on TSAs blog boils down to a us v them festival, and I truly hate that. I can understand both sides of that issue - passengers that feel unfairly put upon come to the blog to make a point, and seek (in some cases) guidance to make certain that they do not suffer a repeat of their difficulties again. I wish there were a way to channel the constructive suggestions into a think tank or the management pool to help us understand different points of view, and problems that occur from time to time, and many of the points made in the lucid complaints are heard and forwarded up to HQ (if not read by HQ beforehand). The biggest problem is the chaff and junk posts that obscure these valid complaints, questions, and suggestions.

On the other hand, you have TSA personnel that have worked at an airport for 8 years and have never seen anything even close to what is being posted. That can lend to a tendency to not understand what is being said, or to disbelief (in some cases) because they have never had it happen before. Combine the fact that they have worked in their airport for 8 years, never seen anything like it, and stack all the chaff and junk posts (from BOTH TSA and non TSA folks) on top of it, and it can make some folks take on an adversarial edge. I dislike that, and one of the calmer heads on this site is now bowing out because they are tired of the chaff and resulting stuff that goes with it.

To be honest, there are times when I read something here and coming from a smaller airport, I can not relate to it. I have worked for a 30 day stint at LAX and have a better grasp than some of my coworkers here, but it is hard to relate to some things because I do not see them here - ever. The vitriolic posts run both ways and sadly that detracts from the conversation on a basic level.:(


Passengers are not potential terrorists, they are simply passengers. We screen them according to the SOP so there is no tendency to profile one type of person over another. I, for one, disagree with letting the flight crews go with no screening. I am also in agreement with several of the posters on here that TSA personnel could be screened entering the checkpoint as well - as in, I do not mind screening upon entry to the checkpoint. There are several things we do right as an agency, there are also seveeral areas that offer us a chance for improvement.

Interesting that both in quoting those lines from that thread and in the thread itself you have said nothing about the passenger being detained and being poorly treated by the TSA at PHX.

You seem much more concerned about a TSO being called "Jabba the Hutt."

I guess everyone has their "thing."

I have not commented on the video because this was a separate thread. I think the situation was poorly handled and without the benefit of all information on the incident, I can't comment any further than that. I was merely clicking on the first thread to make the point that worse terminologies are used in reference to TSA members here on a regular basis, and that TB was making a valid point.

Tranquilized? You are too kind.

But isn't that the point of a moderated blog? If TSA wasn't going to commit adequate resouces to the blog or if Bob simply isn't up to the task, perhaps it would be better to shut it down and end the charade.

I get the point about folks at small/slow airports having limited experience. I don't quite get why they automatically assume that if they haven't personally seen it, the pax must be lying. But what is wrong with Bob stepping in when an alleged TSO makes an incorrect post? If he steps in and adds/corrects the post, both the pax and the errant TSO can benefit. He does occasionally step in to 'correct' a pax, but I never see him do it with posts by alleged TSOs that are clearly incorrect. That lapse on his part just increases the 'us vs them' tone of the blog. It encourages the view that Bob thinks TSA and alleged TSOs are always righter than pax. It certainly doesn't come across as anything remotely 'fair and balanced'.

(I make a point of referring to 'alleged' TSOs because I don't know if Bob always knows if someone professing to be a TSO really is one or not. Whether it's a non-TSO masquerading as a TSO to stir up trouble or an actual TSO with limited experience and an assumption that pax make things up, if Bob steps in and corrects the information, everyone benefits).

I believe I've seen you express awareness of the limitations of the blog. I believe someone (you or someone using your screenname posts there from time to time). Just curious...improving the blog doesn't seem so difficult to me - doesn't require Congressional hearings, extensive and costly 'training programs', etc. It's been years now - why don't we see any sign of improvement?

Too bad they can't hire Randy Peterson or some of the mods here. The blog would be vastly improved in short order. Not necessarily from the point of view of TSOs who don't know what they are talking about and expect unconditional support, but overall it would be better for all of us, pax and TSA.

Let's not blame the travelling public for the TSA not being able to put in place a mechanism for the dissemination of suggestions. Your own colleagues have said that IdeaFactory, the TSA's internal program for employees, has the same issues.

I think it is important to understand that there is a war going on here. The TSA and DHS declared a war against "terror" whatever that means. Although they seem to cause quite a bit of it themselves at checkpoints. I know I am scared by them. Even though my fear is of missing my plane.

The real war is between the TSA and the flying public and especially between the TSA and "Domestic Extremists" like the majority of the posters here. When a TSO posts here it is like someone from the National Socialist party of WWII Germany posting in a Jewish forum. Our views of the world and of right and wrong are just so different that it takes extra effort on both sides to have a peaceful discussion.

I for one am very glad that some TSOs have thick enough skin to even consider posting in a forum like this. It is the only way for us to get information directly from the horses mouth. But not to expect hatred on both sides is unrealistic. We are enemies. While I don't think it is warranted at the moment, I would eventually be willing to pick up a gun and participate in an armed rebellion to defend our freedom to travel. That means that the TSOs and I would be on opposite sides in a very real war.

Poorly Handled??
 

Huh? Please tell us what we outraged passengers are missing in that video that doesn't receive a "Leaving that woman in there to be humiliated in a glass box for that amount of time without contact looks to be outrageous" response from you? You said "poorly handled", but as an AMERICAN and a HUMAN with feelings, why are you not outraged that even ONE person would be treated like this in this country? Tell us why that doesn't rise to the level of a breakdown in humanity that does not even initially give you pause to think it would be inhumane.

Of course, we can all go back and try to justify how that situation would have happened - busy TSA, someone innocently forgot about her, etc., but at the initial outset, why couldn't you say "OMG, that's terrible!, I feel sorry for her." :confused:

If you are bound by some rules of TSA that doesn't allow you to express your true feelings, then I see no point for you to be even here because your responses will always be suspect and given no merit.

I have seen Bob jump in on TSOs, and I have corrected one before, but I am merely a cog in the wheel. I think one problem is that the agency does not devote a great deal of resources to the TSA blog - please do not quote me on that, as I am not in HQ, I do not have printouts on manhours and such, so I can't comment intelligently on that, it is just the way it feels at this point. For the situation he is in, Bob does a fairly good job of keeping most of the balls he has to juggle in the air. Many .gov blogs have a dedicated staff of 4-5 persons - TSA, not so much. Interesting you should mention the "alleged TSOs", they show up all the time and some of them are certainly not TSOs. No member of an organization like this should expect unconditional support - you have to be in the right before support can be given by the agency, and if you are in the wrong, then there should be steps taken to correct that. I will send Bob a note indicating that correcting more "TSOs" and TSOs would be mroe forthcoming to the public. Another problem that the blog team runs into is they are given SOP or how it is interpreted at HQ (i.e. the spirit of the SOP), and sometimes by the time that SOP reaches the user end, the interpretation is different. This is the same with any large organization in many cases. I feel we should be doing a better job of getting the same interpretation of the SOP at all end users, so when Bob posts a thread about something going on, the TSO you meet in LAX, or DCA or even here should be at the least pretty close to each other. Communication is one of our biggest challenges as an agency (of course, that seems to be the biggest challenge for ANY agency).

I was not blaming the public for anything, I was merely pointing out that it is difficult to read through 300 posts where maybe 10-15 of them have constructive information you could actually use or forward up the chain for consideration, and the others are simply something along the lines of "Nazi this, fascist that, I hate you, fondle this, grope that, hope you all die, no one has ever used children for anything evil, no one has ever used the elderly for anything evil, sexual abuse, sexual assault, pervert, porno purveyors" et cetera. When you dig through the comments, and a majority of them are non-constructive, it makes missing the constructive ones easy. I think that the Idea Factory has challenges (come on, what program DOESN'T?), but some good changes and programs have come from it despite those challenges.

Despite your commentary to the contrary, I do not consider the folks that post things of a different opinion to be enemies. We are all in the same boat here, we just have different points of view on certain subjects. I disagree with your analogy above, it is a challenge to post here as a TSO because of the level of vitriol from some of the regulars. It is a joy to post here when one of the regulars makes a point for me (which happens from time to time). I come here to try and have constructive dialogue, sometimes I am happy because I get it, sometimes not so much. The only way for me to foster positive change is to learn as much as I can and forward it to those that may get it to someone that can make those changes. That is why I come here, and I hope that TB will do the same, as an LEO they have a completely different viewpoint, and it is nice to see them post it here (regardles of the sometimes crappy responses they get).

gsoltso, thank you for your posts here & the same for TB. I hope you change your mind & return..

No doubt I'll get slammed by some one for this post.

I did not comment because it was in ANOTHER thread. I said that it was poorly handled because I have no audio, and only her statements as to everything that went on. How do you know that she was not treated this way because she was making threats? How do you know that she was not under some further scrutiny because of an alarm? How do you know that she was not under scrutiny because the LEO had something that she fit the description for? When you see this video, you have only her story to go with it, and not enough information to make an INFORMED commentary on the video. So, to keep from saying "oh what a terrible situation she should never have to suffer through this" and then find out later that she was on an FBI list or had an alarm on half the items in her stuff and her person so the staff had to be more thorough in clearing her items to make certain that what she said was there is actually what was there - I simply say it was handled poorly because there are several things that could have been done differently, and leave it at that.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Turncoat! Benedict! LOL. I appreciate the comments Coach!^

Google the IGYB program (I got your back).

Well I'm one that just calls things on here the way I see them based on current & past positions & experiences.

I'd like to clarify what I meant about Bob correcting erroneous comments by TSOs or 'alleged' TSOs.

From my perspective (pax), I go to an agency blog. I see things posted by folks who allege (screen name or explicit comments) that they work for the agency. The comments are unchallenged by the moderator of the blog. I take this to mean that these comments do actually represent the agency and its policies.

Anyone who posts on the blog as a TSO (or alleged TSO) is doing so as a spokesman for the agency.

I would feel the same about any organizational blog. Certainly at my company, we are prohibited from posting to any IBB in any way that might be construed to mean our comments represent the company. I can not have a screen name 'CompanyXgirl' or post "I work for CompanyX and think...". Even if I make it clear that my comments represent my personal opinion, don't represent my company, etc, that is not good enough. My company still feels that the public perception will be that I am a spokesman for my company in some way.

I am new here, but color me incredulous that there is a 5 page thread for a member announcing that they are going to leave the forum. Seems a little extra dramatic. Is it to drum up a lot of "please don't leave us" posts?

Why not just stop posting?

It's to point out (and in this I agree) that it does nothing to help informed debate if those who disagree just shout insults and personal attacks at each other for voicing their opinion.

By doing so you help contribute to the "bubble" so to speak, you make it very easy for those who disagree to marginalize or discredit you in their own mind, even if you (or those that agree with you) have well reasoned arguments.

I didn't mean you specifically by the way, but you in the plural everyone sense of the word.

bolded by me:

Understood. Got it!

What's amazing to me is the large prevailing attitude on TS&S of you are either with us or against us. This is the same attitude that got us to this problem in the first place back shortly after 9/11 occured.

I'm not saying to stop anything but to make posts about people being brainwashed (3rd reply after the OPs post) shows the prevailing attitude on this specific forum...

Well, your Administrator Pistole; tearing himself away from his wet dream of giving TS"O"'s weapons and LEO powers, said different.
With the change, “we save limited resources in terms of who we are physically screening,” Pistole said in the interview. The approach will “allow us to pay more attention to those potential terrorists.”
You might not think all pax are potential terrorists, but the person who is supposed to set the tone and direction for your organization, apparently does. I'm not surprised that the irony of you accusing us here on FT of using broad ugly brushes, while your administrator with all that power and responsibility, does the same only larger and uglier, is irony completely lost on you.

Interesting thought. I have long believed that this discussion is not black or white, and I think that FT actually is less black and white in stance than some other fora.

I posted earlier in this thread how I arrived here not being anti-TSA, nor anti-TSO, and still don't agree with hyperbole or name-calling to support an argument.

Yet even then I don't feel that most of the 'anti-TSA' posters value my input any less. I cannot say the same for some of the TSOs who post here, however. (And again, I did value the TSOs who posted here in past in a helpful manner and who have mostly disappeared)

Returning to the general topic of this thread, earlier I pointed out that TSA doesn't do itself a favour sometimes by allowing TSOs to openly post online. Two threads started this week by TSOs support my belief, as do comments from several of the new posters who appeared this week on those threads.

You may not have been INFORMED, but you could tell (as a reasonable person) that this was at the very least "poorly handled" based upon the seemingly outrageous and inhumane treatment of that woman. But maybe I should be happy you admitted that.

Point being that you could've said "oh what a terrible situation...", but instead reserved judgment (and didn't even make a comment on that thread) when it was obvious (even to Eyecue) that something was terribly wrong.

My comments thus far are intended to make the point that the inability to be human, caring or understanding by giving a weak "poorly handled" response in reaction to an obvious situation that other reasonable people react to (even Eyecue) makes anything you say disingenuous and unbelievable. You're too busy defending your organization than being able to actually recognize and admit to possible or even real abuses.

Following this inability where TSA is concerned is the entire problem with the disconnect between the flying public, FT and TSA, and is why TB is having such a hard time. Try putting on the shoes that passengers have to take off. (Obviously that's gross, but I thought it was good. Sue me)

Anyway, I don't think all TSOs are terrible, and hate to see unjustified insults and name calling since we are all humans trying to get by in this world, but I DO see a disconnect in how the flying public's rights are viewed and the blind dedication to their organization by the TSOs, and there needs to be more humanity in those views.

^^ Well said.

Another excellent post. ^^

GSO, unlike a few other TSO's that post here, you aren't a knee jerk TSA defender, and I always enjoy reading your posts, even when I disagree with them, because you aren't arrogant, and you don't put yourself up on a pedestal - unlike another well-known poster.

FT needs more of you and less of the OP.

That said, your agency does treat passengers as potential terrorists, which is why your agency is fast becoming the federal agency Americans most like to hate. For reasons known only to your management - not the cream of the crop, BTW - TSA persists in maintaining an elaborate security theater production which makes the assumption that the biggest threat to aviation security is the passenger. People inside and outside the government who have studied threats to aviation have long concluded that under the wing security is the biggest threat we face, yet your management consistently hides this reality. Instead, we are forced to choose between being groped or strip searched - when neither method is close to 100% effective.

Once TSA and DHS stops lying to the flying public, things can improve. Until then, you and your colleagues will unfortunately be the ones to suffer.

+infinity Exbayern

I started learning about TSA on November 16 when I was getting ready to take a flight that I eventually chose to opt out of (didn't fly). I don't fly a whole lot, and I never gave a second thought about TSA or TSOs. I didn't dread going having to deal with them at any point. This non dread ceased upon having to determine whether I wanted a virtual strip search or my privates felt for the simple action of getting on a plane.

Then I started doing my research, and it hasn't been pretty for TSA or TSOs, and seeing the responses by TSOs on FT just makes it look worse. I'm seeing a "blindness" in how they see the public, and it's very disturbing and frustrating. Because of this blindness, their responses hold no sway for me, and I will continue to disregard them since I can't trust that they are being genuine in their responses, but only covering up for their organization, which is scary that you'd rather be a part of the Organization instead of a part of Humanity.

This thread has served it's purpose in our opinion and now we're just getting down to discussing other members, moderation and other issues which are both against the TOS and off-topic. And some of which have been deleted.

Feel free to join in the other active discussions that are currently active.

___________________________

Cholula
TS/S Co-Moderator