This was in regards to the new passport measures req. passports for travel to Mexico/Canada:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

these are the guys who drive me bananas. you just know they fly once or twice a year, and are willing to 'do whatever it takes' to 'keep things safe.' (like get a passport?! oh, please.)

there was a brief time where i started hearing a bunch of radio talk show hosts complaining about the ridiculous security we have currently, and i was frankly hoping it would have some effect on the sheeple, but that seems to have largely passed.

i think the real issue is that most people don't fly enough to be inconvenienced often enough to think about it. (it's like moving. it's always horrible, but you don't do it often enough to remember how bad it is from one time to the next.)

bizarre analogy. perhaps i'd best get some sleep.

I bet he believed in Santa until he was 14.

The guy that was quoted is exactly who the TSA caters to.

These people obviously fail to realize that anyone who is a true security threat will be sure to have not just one, but probably a few, passports to use in their travel. More layers of petty paper pushing will not protect anyone.

No, this is not who the TSA caters to. The TSA caters to politicians and the airlines and it is doing an excellent job in carrying out its intended task.

That task is to:

1. Provide the illusion of security in order to encourage air travel (which was a critical task post 9/11).

2. Protect politicians from possible charges of failure to protect the flying public.

If a hijacker is able to get a gun onto a plane tomorrow (and I do not at all believe that this is impossible) it will be blamed on a glitch in the system, not on politicians.

If the president (any president) were to shut it down and there were to be a hijacking, he would be impeached and possibly convicted on charges of dereliction of duty.

If Congress were to vote it out of existence, and a hijacking followed, any Congressman who voted against the TSA would have a very difficult time in getting re-elected.

If the TSA really existed to provide security, I would agree that it is not doing its job. That, however, is not the case.

(BTW, if I were running for office I would much rather have the backing of all those who believe that the TSA is protecting us than the small number of frequent flyers who realize that it is not.)

Much to my chagrin, every point below is correct.

Mike

I agree with you on that angle.

However, I maintain the TSA has a constant battle of trying to win the hearts and minds of the public. Keeping everyone scared is crucial to the public's acceptance of the TSA.

This is as good a place as any to address the issue of "getting rid of" the TSA. I don't think it's going to happen, as such, anytime soon, if at all. Instead, what about the original idea of national standardization, etc? The TSA as originally intended. The accountability issue seems to stem from frustration over conflicting procedures from airport to airport -- or within an facility itself (think: BOS). I'd like to see a procedure where a traveler can fill out a multi-part complaint form at the airport to be signed by a supervisor, with the original being mailed to the govt in a FED BUSINESS POSTAGE envelope by the traveler, so the locals can't disregard it. In other words, before they chuck your 4 oz of saline, you announce: "I want it written up."

As for the BTW above: I would agree that applies to a Republican candidate trying to keep his sheeplebase. A Democrat would do better bashing this Administration along the lines of "We've been reduced to ferreting out toothpaste and shampoo from honest Americans (this means YOU! listener) to distract us from real threats." As of now, I believe the public is cynical enough that a majority feels this stuff is "stupid" - regardless of whose quotes appear in newspaper articles.