No, only a Sith deals in absolutes. What I'm saying is that it's probably a pre-requesite for being bent out of shape on these security measures to dimiss the threat of terrorism. This only becomes the destruction of civil liberties if you think there's no threat. If you think the threat is real you're more likely to accept a few inconveniences.

People make statements here such as "I'll take my chances with the 0.0001% chance of the plane blowing up because of terrorists --- just get rid of all this security." Obviously, they don't think the terrorists are a threat or that it won't happen to them.

Not to go all Omni but I watched Episode III on 9/11...Anakin's speach right before that how he's brough peace and security to his new empire sounded a lot like Bush's speech....

Uh, you check your bags in, go through security, and are then late to the plane. Understand TSAdude? I clearly wrote that in my first post.

This idea occurred to me while waiting for two hours on a flight several weeks ago because one passenger didn't make the flight on time after checking in. They spent 20 minutes waiting, then we had an announcement that it would be another 20 minutes because they had to load the bag, then we had an ATC hold for 20 minutes, then the last few passengers got on board (we were told all this was because of one), then we had a one-hour weather delay.

You guys crack me up!!!!!!!!!!! :td:

As for the suggestions on how to protest, having one person "arrested" for being late to a plane or for trying to take a bottle of water through security - whatever you want to call it, that person's actions have 0.00 affect on government policy. Why? There's no margin in it.

All of the suggestions such as mine or the ones about checking in bags of lawn clippings or boat anchors or whatever it is, these off the wall ideas relate to one truth - a passenger having a problem gets zero political attention, an airline having a problem gets a lot of political attention. If the airlines start to feel a pinch in their wallets, then the concern is routed right through K street and on to the Hill very very quickly.

AngryDan, I do find it interesting that your handle is Angry Dan. What are you angry about? Did you become a TSA screener because you were angry about something in your life or did you get angry after you became a screener? You seem very quick to judge the travelers you interact with when one of the key tenants of good security is to never judge. That goes both ways. I would say that 90%+ of TSA screeners I've run into since it's inception have been OK. I've run into a solid 5% who acted like they really were prison guards or something. Just like you don't like the way some passengers act, a lot of passengers don't like the way a few TSA screeners act. Does that make it right to take it out on you if you haven't done anything? No, but it's your job to deal with it. It comes with the territory.

Many of us who use this forum to spitball ideas actually do use some of the ideas - check out the rest of FlyerTalk. Personally, I've spoken with all four of my Senator's offices (I have houses in two states) and both Representatives, and I'm friends with another Representative and have actually spoken with him several times about the subject. In my travels I always give the TSA guys the benefit of the doubt but on several occasions I have personally run into the wannabe badass TSA agent - usually ex-military types but never ex-cops or actual LE - who is doing a lot more yelling and screaming and throwing around a lot more verbal abuse than I've ever witnessed a passenger throw. You certainly have one or two of those at your airport, at the least. I'm sure you avoid them too, correct?

For us, getting on an airplane to go our jobs is the equivelent of you hopping in your car to drive to work. We're just flying to work, and trying to do it as quickly as possible with as little hassle as possible.