I'd gladly give up my aluminum pots and pans for a just war, which WWII most certainly was. However, I'll not gladly give up even more of my freedom for the "war on terror" than I've already given up for the "war on drugs."

Is it toothpaste, or TERROR PASTE?!! OH NO!!!!

I read yesterday that a flight was diverted because someone left a BlackBerry on board. BE FRIGHTENED, BE SCARED! COWER IN FEAR!!!

For my part, this is no way to live. I'll take the .00001% chance that I'll be unlucky enough to be blown up by Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen (why, with all of the resources of the United States military, haven't we found a 7 foot tall guy who needs a dialysis machine yet?) any day versus the 100% chance I'll be subjected to ritual harassment by the TSA and the >10% chance the airline will lose my bags.

Fire the TSA and turn the function over to private contractors. Either that or put the Coast Guard in charge. Those guys are disciplined, professional, and courteous to the public. The TSA is none of the above.

My post was in reference to the original poster saying that he liked to gum up the system as a protest against the TSA. I didn't defend TSA policies. If you want to debate that stuff, I'm not really interested. I just follow, I don't make policy. My job is to do the best job with what they give me. I don't get too personally invested in whether the prohibition against liquids is good or not. No one is going to listen to my opinion anyway.

I do think my original point stands...all the original poster is doing is making it harder on other travelers. It won't ruin my day if his plane is late, or other people have to wait longer.

But if people actually care enough about this, then they should try to do something about it. If I actually thought my government was doing something immoral/unconstitutional/etc that I worked myself into a frenzy about it, then I would feel a moral obligation to fight it.

If just a few hundred travelers refused to comply with the TSA around the country, it would make headline news everywhere. If enough wrote their congressmen, the issue would show up on the national radar. If tons of profitable business travelers stopped flying, the airlines would take notice.

A small group of people can change national policy. It wouldn't take much to generate enough of a momentum against the TSA. But the idiot loud mouths are simply too lazy to actually do anything to support their beliefs. They will post here, or throw a tantrum at the airport but won't do the hard work that true protest is all about.

For every one of you who acts like a big baby in the checkpoint, there are three to four other adult passengers shaking their heads about your conduct. When you act like a two year old, you cause people to judge your beliefs by your behavior. I don't need to justify my job, people who throw fits cause sympathy for the TSA without us doing a thing.

I will never have to worry about about my job as long as the frequent flyer population acts like they are being sent to the gas chamber every time they have to take off their shoes. Sensible adults won't join you. Congresspeople don't want to listen to you because you act like a nut. Parents point people like you out to their children when they pass through the airport as an example of how not to behave in public.

There is a great debate to be had about TSA policies. But we will never hear that debate because the frequent flyer types have marginalized themselves and are too lazy to actually take a stand that might inconvenience themselves.

So spout, rage, insult me, compare me to NAZIs, or anything you want. All I ask is you continue to keep paying those security fees.

Angry Dan

Well, yes, but that would require one to get out of one's Aeron chair and, well, do something besides b*tch, moan, and type.

Dude, that would be a great t-shirt to sell at the next TSA conference!

Sorta reminds me of the netroots/KOS/Kuchinich wing of the Democrat party, now that you mention it. Though I bet a lot of these folks are actually big-L libertarians.

You the man!

Please to name one freedom you've given up for anything in the last 20 years? Freedom to wear your shoes through the metal detector? Freedom to not have a federally funded helicoptor fly through your neighborhood looking for hotspots? What?

Elian Gonzales had his freedoms taken away, you and me are fine. Well, me anyway.

The freedom to be believed innocent until proven guilty. It has become a way of life now for the average citizen of the United States to have to prove they are not out to do dirty deeds before they can take certain actions.

As one poster stated yesterday, he had to provide an ID and have his personal information entered into some database in order to buy medicine for his baby; school children must prove that they do not take drugs before the can participate in extra curricular activities; we must take off our shoes and divest ourselves of clothing before we can get on a plane.

All of the above presume guilt until we prove otherwise.

Baloney. Please to give a specific non-trivial non-mostly-incorrect (see below) example.

So did my mother to get my Syrup of Ipacac - in the early 60's (yes, I am an old fart).
Well, good point on the Clinton-era instituted random drug testing, but it's not like kids in high school sports were dropping dead of steroid use 20+ years ago, were they? By the same measure you must be horrified by metal detectors, limited drivers licenses, and dog licenses. I'm going to give you 1/4 point for that example.
I think I can speak for the travelling public - keep your clothes on. You have to put on a bathing suit before you get into a public pool - does that offend you too?
Really? Does showing a police officer your drivers license at license checkpoint presume guilt and violate your civil liberties?

Go ahead and do this as many times as you like. The airlines will inform you with a smile that your bags didn't make it because you waited until the last moment to check in. ^ So I will challenge all of you to protest using this method.

Hold on there Dan, most frequent flyer types are just mildly perturbed about these restrictions. The vast majority understand the need and are appreciative of the job the TSA does. It's just a few vocal whackos on the internet that are making the noise. The nature of the internet makes the voices of the people on the fringe seem louder than the vast majority because they're the only ones riled up enough to shout so much.

If the situation truly were the nazification of our travel infrastructure I'm sure the mainstream media would be all over it. Liberal democrats would be pummeling Bush for his draconian policies. They're not, because walking 20 feet without your shoes and going for an entire hour without water just isn't that big of a deal. An annoyance, but hardly a trip to Treblinka.

And you're absolutely right. Acting like a baby in public, endless posting about how the TSA screeners are jackbooted thugs, and callling Chertoff a communist at every opportunity just makes the vast majority of people dimiss them as nuts.

If you've got to be angry and make a big public fuss about something, how about venting at the terrorists who started all this?

I think I see the correlation here. People that think the war on terror is fake are against the TSA restrictions?

How about removing the Taliban? Was that a just war? When did the terrorists start attacking us, anyway?

Do you think 9/11 was faked? That it was just a big PR operation designed to take away more freedoms?

I think I see the one you're bringing to light. You're either with us or against us. Either you believe in the water ban or you might as well be knitting Osama woolly hats for the winter.

"If you don't think Nazi fits, what about brigand, STASI, troll at a bridge, bureaucratic henchman?"

Completely ludicrous garbage and an insult to genuine victims of the Stasi (and victims of trolls).

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!!!!!!!!!!!

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.