emphasis mine: exactly right! ^ classic left hand/right hand not knowing nor being able/wanting to talk to each other. you know, local leo's tell federal leo's "something is up" and federal leo's respond with something like "don't tell us how to do our job" or vv, emergency responders not all on the same radio frequency, and my pet peeve....not following the money as one fibbie pointed out to his superiors when he came across large amounts of money being wired to the (the suspected) ter'wrists via places like las to make it seem "normal" as a lot of money gets wired in/out of las and was told not to worry about it.

Not a complete surprise; it shows. The TSA is NOT part of the military although quite a few who work there wish or believe it.

And, unfortunately, it will always be like that.

sadly agreeing with you but given the severity of 9/11 you might think that folks would/might learn.....oh never mind

I actually think that is a very reasonable, sensible, and efficient way to manage many kinds of operations, including airport clearances. However, having such a mindset is not enough. Things tend to get sticky when the problem is conceived as belonging to pax primarily; confront means reverting to confrontational behaviors towards pax and the public; fix means fixing pax through behavior modification tactics like DYW2FD, spooky technology, experimental scientific applications such as BD, and poor expectations management; and go on means proceeding without accountability.

Added: not meaning anything personal towards you, gsoltso, just saying that the hammer can be a useful tool or a destructive one, and it is the hand of the user that determines the use

LOL, you know this based on your extensive legal training and experience?

I am not the only poster who posted repeatedly about the causes of 9/11. No one with any credibility seriously argues that TSA could have prevented 9/11. The overwhelming evidence suggests that the primary causes of 9/11 were a failure of intelligence and the policies in place at the time that forbid airline crews from resisting. As another poster recently noted, the events of flight 93 probably ended the chance of a 9/11 repeat. Even if TSA had been in existence before 9/11 with all of the security theater in place then that we have now, the 9/11 terrorists could have still achieved their objective.
So while we don't know for certain if TSA could have prevented 9/11, all the evidence we have available suggests it would not not have prevented it.

Actually, Ron, I've studied information not available to the general public about the 9/11 attacks, so I'm quite comfortable comparing my level of knowledge to yours.

Admit what? I'll discuss anything here in public, Ron. What exactly what hole have I dug for myself, Ron? What facts that I posted here have you or anyone else successfully refuted?

And if you can, please respond without an immature reference to what my mother thinks about my posts, OK? That only undermines your credibility.

I know we are not part of the military, there is no way on this earth that I could ever confuse the two, nor would I want this to be the military (for one thing, I am too fat and slow to do the PT now). Some aspectes of the military would be nice to see here, but there are way to many differences between the two groups to make military styled leadership take a hold in TSA. I don't want a paramilitary type group to run the security either, we are here to do a job, not fight. I was merely pointing out that I think more in terms of see a problem, correct it now and do so head on. That is pretty much how most military members thought (when I was in anyway).

I agree 100%^ . I would like to think that I would be more creative than confrontational. It really does not serve us as an agency to use things like DY...T, or intimidation tactics or attitude. It may work in some situations, but it is usually counterproductive and inflammatory. I just think it is a good policy to meet the challenges head on and resolve them NOW, instead of letting the problems fester. Things can be resolved in several cases by simply taking a little time to talk to the pax if there is a problem. Even if you are not happy with the final outcome of a situation, at least if I communicate with you throughout the process you should be able to gain a better understanding of what is going on and why the situation occurred in the first place.

My apologies, I must have confused you with someone else . My opinion is that a logical and proactive approach to problems is not an exclusively 'military' way of thinking, and I'll leave it at that.

The TSA, in its screening operations, does seem to have lost sight of the fact that it is a civilian security operation (assuming that ever was their sight). Attempts to aggrandize screeners, quasi-LE uniforms, barking of orders etc. is not how it should be done.

Again, I agree 100%, the military does not have a head on exclusivity! The uniforms, I actually agree with, it presents a professional appearance, and a uniform appearance. Barking of orders, I abhor, screaming at passengers does nothing but fluster them and cause more problems. Failure to confront problems in their infancy and take steps to determine the best course of action early on and adjust to meet the challenge is bad in many ways. Finding creative, effective ways to address problems is the best way to get in front of said problem and do what is best for all involved in the long run. Some of the things I am seeing right now (from the agency) are promising, the fact that (whatever your opinion of the TSA Blog) the agency has a focus on social media that is more interactive than most other branches of the government is a good step. It gives us a chance to tap into the public at the user end instead of static polls and fluffy questions, it gives you raw feedback and some ideas that maybe have been lost or not considered. There are some new programs and tech that are showing really good possibilities for the near future and I hope that we can get some good focus on that end of the process. One of our biggest problems right now is the 1970s tech located in most of the checkpoints. If we can deploy updated tech with better capabilities it will go a long way towards helping with some of our PR issues.

Just because one wears a uniform doesn't guarantee a professional appearance. An overweight, slovenly, unkempt TSO looks far better in a polo shirt than a smurf shirt and a tin badge. Unfortunately, many TSO's present anything but a professional appearance.

Yet arrogant barking at the moat is the norm.

As it is currently constituted, Propaganda Village is not helping TSA's image. In fact, it contributes to the view of many that TSA is an arrogant, out of control agency that needs to be disbanded and rebuilt.

Right. And until it undergoes such a metamorphosis, THIS former flier isn't ABOUT to fly any more. Four years, and so far..

TA-DAAAA! No side effects!

Mission accomplished, TSA.

I've started reading a new author of mystery novels, Dana Stabenow. As with every single author I have read who has written a mystery since 9/11, Stabenow throws in a comment about the TSA. I don't have the book in front of me but she wrote to the effect: "the rentacops from the TSA can't remember a face five minutes after screening the person, how are they ever going to remember someone two weeks later?"

I'm sorry sir, you can't take that Dana Stabenow book on the plane. It is dangerous- it could cause paper cuts.

To some extent you are right. If the management makes no effort to enforce the appearance standards, then there is a gap. Using overweight is bad form, many people have weight problems, many have glandular problems, and many just don't know when to push back from the table (this is the category that I most closely identify with), this does not mean that they are not effective TSOs and some can even contribute creative answers to problems, to discount someone becuase of weight is a sad thing to do.

Not while I am on the floor.

I think the TSA Blog is the opposite, it shows actual interaction with the public. It shows a dissenting opinion freely, it addresses some questions directly and shows the organization is forward thinking enough to have the forum in the first place. Some of the people that post there ARE arrogant - on both sides of the posts. That is normal, there are many that post polite, direct commentary. There are those that post well reasoned responses (which is what I try to do) and then there are some questions that can't be answered because of regs. I like the blog and am proud to be recognized as one of the team.