A few more years of the current nonsense and I'd start to doubt that the Courts will strike down (or uphold striking down) some of these provisions.

First of all, I am not one who says that we are in a full blown "police sate." That is a benchmark useful for comparison, however. I think it is legitimate to talk about inching in that direction even for those who do not believe that we will arrive there.

All "little bit" of a police state is not acceptable.

Still, forced compliance with a bumbling or "dumb" bureaucracy with little recourse in the moment or over a period of many, many months cannot be dismissed, as you note. It is harmful. When the bureaucracy itself show no desire to make rooting out these kinds of elements, but merely says, "hey, you don't like it, you don't fly. You want us to change, go for it, but don't expect us to focus on these issues" then it is unacceptably complacent.

The process of changing these police state tendencies is long, cumbersome, and perhaps toothless.

In a democracy, I would expect an agency like the TSA to very concerned and to be working very hard to correct itself in regard to these issues rather than waiting to be corrected through citizen complaints and far from certain political or judicial intervention.

The OP that we can creep toward acceptance of an agency's over-reaching into our rights and legitimate expectations of being treated with dignity stands: the cowing of the public by continual harangues about "orange level" threat, the very real threat of abuse of authority: "do you want to fly today," etc. is valid. Hastily trained people, hastily drawn up rules, and robotic application of them are part of the banality of this creep.

Not every part of a true "police state" has well honed intent. It is also an atmosphere of bullying and eventual resigned compliance with silly rules and inept bureaucrats that is as much a part of that atmosphere as steely efficiency.

I can see why, from your position, that you would want to dismiss me. I can see how it is easier for you to label me as someone who thinks that "any inconvenience" is an infringement.

However, that is not my position. I am in favor of intelligent security operated by nearly exclusively by intelligent and well trained people. Sorry, we do not have that.

My experience at the screening stations is that the level of competence has improved. That more screeners seem to have better attitudes and better training than before. However, the percentage of utter buffoons and unintelligent people is observably high. One can get an idea of the general level of a service industry. Most banks have people with a high level of capability than most Walgreens, in my experience. I know that I will find a better level of training and higher level of intelligence - generally - when something a bit off script occurs at my bank than at most Walgreens.

To me the TSA falls between these two and too often on the Walgreens end of the spectrum.

Perhaps your years in the military, not known for drawing into enlistment a mix that includes predominantly those of the higher levels of intelligence forms your perception. Just a guess. NOTE: this is not to say to that some or many intelligent people do not choose to work for the TSA or join the military, I am talking about the over all mix.

Sorry to be so un-PC, but us liberals are a callous, insensitive lot. ;)

Those who believe in control of the population in the name security are always present in every society. As are those who merely use it as an excuse to do business. The "security" industry is huge and acts certainly, in part, in its own best interest. It is always a struggle a struggle between the absolute authoritarians and the absolute anarchists - to polarize the spectrum. Then there is the of people who fall at many points between. Then there are those - perhaps the majority - who have no opinion, but will go along - in a banal fashion - to accept and to actively participate in the trends.

The people at the authoritarian finds the aftermath of an even like 9/11 to be a time that they can move their agenda forward. They have found success and they have striven to keep the atmosphere of fear alive because it works for them, it furthers the actualization of their beliefs.

Huh? Joking, right?

Deleted

Aside from the rather smug and presumptuous qualities of some your post, and some inaccurate assumptions about whether I am willing to stand up for myself, I agree with some of what you wrote.


NO ONE is saying that a screener has the authority of police officer. Nor is "a police state" only about or all about the police. It is about neighbor spying on neighbor, for example. It is also about the petty tyranny of petty officials who are not officially police. Even if a screener cannot arrest me, he can pat me down, treat me as a suspected criminal, and interfere with me in many ways. Screeners have a color of authority that is way above their pay grade and they have authority way above the perfectly innocuous.

I am well aware that I have recourse. I am aware that complaints of mine and of many other who post here have fallen on deaf ears. No politician has the guts to demand what is needed to reform the stupidity of the policy and the ineptness of too many too poorly trained screeners


You explain quite well what I already understood quite well. However, it is mere excuse. For whatever reason the TSA is, as you say, lazy and does not do too much of its job very well. Too often, it does not treat the members of the public well. It infringes on our dignity and on our person. Some of this is policy, some of it is personnel.



You don't know that. Some have. Others have wanted to but had a business life to run including the usual tight connections. Many simply cannot afford to take the risk of losing thousands of dollars by missing that meeting.

Even the person who has drawn over 200,000 views here, who has been subject of TV and newspaper reports has not yet received a response to his complaints from the agencies to whom he complained.

Your idea that it is travelers' fault is a pretty outrageous example, really, of the attitude one expects from the TSA.

Deflect, deny, shift the blame. Boy, that crap really gets in your blood, it seems.

Listen up: the TSA's faults are the TSA's responsibility.

Yes, we can and should complain, but you are evading that crystal clear fact that it is the TSA's damn job to clean up its act.

You miss the whole bloody point of this read. It is not about postulating a clever conspiracy. It is about the banality of creeping evil and that banal people and banal events both depict and contribute to an insidious creep.

Weak stuff, my behind, pal. I stand by my statement and you it confirm below.

I did not say all, I did not say that the the TSA must remain in, too many instances, a mere make work program for people who cannot compete for the better jobs you allude to.

What I did say, and you agree while making excuses is "too many screeners are not well trained or of high enough level of maturity/intelligence, and we end up with a Kafkaesque comedic/drama way too often." I did not say all. You do understand the difference between "some, "" too many", and "all", yes?

This is from observation of many screeners while they work.

Too many screeners do not have the native intelligence to know how to respond to slightly novel situations. I don't even mean potential threats. I just mean small novel event. It is easily seen in too many.




How very kind of you "to help me out." Or is it condescension? You have given me no new information and nor provided any that I did not take into account in my first statements.

Well, thanks for the vote of confidence at the end there.

But you are essentially agreeing with me. There are problems attracting and keeping high caliber people.


Well, there we go again. You agree with me that the military does not tend to draw a mix that is in its majority from the higher end of the intelligence scale.

Once again, I did say and do not believe that all in the military are unintelligent. It is clear that the military needs and does draw many fine, intelligent indeed superior people. I am talking about the balance. I don't think - and you confirm with your account of your personal history and the reasons for your difficulties - that having too many intelligent, independent thinking, imaginative people in the ranks would work out very well.

Still, you seem to need to take it all back with a snotty comment at the end. I don't prefer to think ill of the military. I was merely making an observation of what you might be used to.

Never heard of "creating demand for your services and product"? An atmosphere of fear and "we can't be too safe, so don't question the 'security' show we are putting on" benefits the TSA and the rest of the military-industrial complex that cranks out the fear and bogus solutions. Per your SOP, it always someone else's fault.

It's cart and horse and cart again.

Bar room brawls? What has that got to do with the banality of an under trained, under paid (and therefore by your own account under-endowed) of of ersatz "officers" adding to the atmosphere of "comply, citizen, or I will suck up your time in your busy day."?

Amen. As a retired cop, I am worried . . . make that frightened of the militaristic model that cops have adopted, under the rationale of "officer safety". What about citizen safety, and the right to be free from search and seizure protected by the fourth amendment.

Let's all be careful out there.

The comparisons to the Gestapo, SS, KGB, etc are always rather trite - until you lose the right to democratically elect the government, the more rational and less obsessed of us in the population will simply roll our eyes...

When people come through the checkpoint and complain about their lost rights, I generally respond with that.

When you place an item on the X-Ray belt and/or walk through the metal detector...

Dictatorships have been elected to power before; and they don't always begin with the largest, most egregious of power grabs.

The classical definition of a tyrant was someone who had mostly unchecked power because of tremendous popular support -- popular support that marginalized minority opinions that were mainstream just a little while before. Many tyrants would later hold onto power -- often through absurd administrative means, often by laws -- even after no longer having overwhelming popular support for the person or for laws ushered in by the person.

We begin with little Napoleons. You might not take it seriously, but we were bestowed by something called the Constitution that is meant to hold little Napoleons in check. When they aren't held in check, something is broken. And something is broken with the TSA.

Who determined that? The TSA?

The problem is less about too much power given to Law Enforcement, and more the fact that citizens don't know their rights.

I notice that often... Seems as though lots of people are unaware of their rights...

Probably - you have at that point begun the screening process and must complete it. At least, that's the policy at our airport.

As I said, until you lose your right. As far as dictatorships go, I don't think most got started by confiscating swiss army knives at the airport. Our government is fairly robust, it was built from the ground up with an inherent distrust of the ability of people to preserve democracy - which is why it's so inately inefficient and lumbering.

I'd be more concerned with the government imprisoning persons regardless of their citizenship with no trial, than I would be of airport security, which existed far before 9/11.

However, many of my coworkers who used to work with private security say they had much more leeway back when they were privatized. The simple fact that security is now under the auspices of the government arouses certain people with pre-existing anti-government bias, me thinks.

It begins with little Napoleons and little Napoleon lovers. And it's not when I lose my rights or am subjected to government follies that most concern me, it's when the rights of others are limited or others are subjected to government follies that concern me far more; it's the increasing public acceptance of little Napoleons and mandatory nonsense that concerns me far more than someone trying to step on my very own rights or shove kool-aid or other junk down my throat.

The government is not inately inefficient and lumbering for the reasons you ascribe to it; it's inefficient and lumbering because of the people involved in it .... including voters (and non-voters) but not limited to just those persons.

And the government is imprisoning persons regardless of citizenship without internationally recognized legal proceedings.

When the security was privately operated, the airline reps could also be counted on helping hold the screeners in check. Good luck with that nowadays.

And this has almost nothing to do with "pre-existing anti-government bias"; it has everything to do with the increasing lack of government accountability and the ever growing demonstrations of government incompetence as of late. Including at airports.

Actually, we have a three branch government for the exact reason that it provides checks and balances, and prevents the government from making quick and radical change. Compared with a parliamentary system our government is intentionally lumbering. The founding fathers were not so much idealistic as they were cynical.

Yes, the government is imprisoning non citizens without charges, that is something I'd be more concerned with, as compared with government employees that have no actual powers of enforcement.

The airline reps could be, or they could not be. As it stands now, unless a passenger allows themselves to be trampled by security, they have better recourse - most people simply choose to comply without knowing what rights they have.

And ultimately, if it was truly an issue, than it could be addressed in what politician you vote for - but most sheeple don't.

The parliamentary/PM systems I'm familiar with are not paragons for making quick change, certainly no quicker changes than I've seen in the US.

Yes, things that are truly an issue -- and this is -- can be addressed in what politician you vote for; but some such things cannot be addressed in what politician you vote for. We can thank the short attention spans of the many and fear-mongering peddled by dominant (and near-dominant) cliques for why that is.

All said and done, I have my concerns about privatized screeners too, especially in an environment where we are dealing with what I call the new PC, in a system of public-private partnerships, some of which is troubling. They could be their own manifestation of the banality of evil-lite.