Yesterday I went through security at BWI, Terminal B. I was somewhat aware that that the TSA would have their personnel in place but I wasn't quite ready for the actual experience. Three major impressions come to mind.
1. This is aggressive in your face security, not the passive third world experience we have become acustomed to.
2. The workforce in TSA is predominately white male, law enforcement backgrgound. I foresee problems arising when persons from other backgrounds/cultures encounter this new security apparatus.
3. The aggressive nature of the experience makes it quicker and yet more time consuming at the same time. Expect to be wanded more often and to have your carry-ons be the subject of greater scrutiny.

In general, I was impressed, I think TSA will definitely make the non-business flying public feel more secure. I do feel that some pax will have trouble adjusting to the para-military atmosphere that will accompany airport security for the foreseeable future.

As long as they don't keep barking orders at pax like they're still DIs at boot camp I'm ok. That routine gets a little tiring.

There was an article today -- I think in USA Today -- about the new federal goons. They said that most of them are overqualified and would probably not be around for long. I think something like 60% of them had college degrees. The article confirmed what you have already said -- the workforce is almost entirely white males with LE backgrounds. I wonder when the first civil rights or harassment lawsuit will happen?

Congress is finally starting to rightly question the administration in its spendthrift ways re: TSA. Read about the $31k - $84k TSA airport security guards here in today's NY Times:

www.nytimes.com/2002/05/01/politics/01SPEN.html

$70,000 plus overtime? Sounds like New York. This will go over really well in Peoria.

I know, "whatever it costs is worth it." And my favorite: "If you knew some of the WTC dead like I do, you wouldn't complain about the cost. They sure wouldn't complain." Good grief.

Again, I present Western's One-Point Plan for a Safe Society. Allow anyone with a CCW to carry their gun on the airplane. How many hijackings will there be if the terrorists never know if there are zero or 150 armed passengers?

Western, congratulating self on 200th post.

this means most of the great State of Vermont could be armed on a plane. guess BTV, MHT, and BDL flights will suddenly be a lot safer.

that's a healthy endorsement right there.

(and i wouldn't mind it, either. but i'm a gun nut with a CCW. you know how us gun nuts are. we don't shoot people at random and, hey, some of us haven't even pointed a gun at anything besides a target or a deer. but we're *dangerous*.)

western, i heartily approve of your plan. i don't understand why on earth there isn't broad-based Congressional support. oh, wait, i'm a gun nut.

Western: I'm with ya!

Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, PUNK?

Seriously, though, with Norm Mineta convincing Americans that Swiss Army Knives are to be feared as dangerous weapons, I don't think it will be adopted.

But Sen. Zell Miller (D., GA), keynote NRA speaker, may be with you too, at least for the pilots. See:

Georgia Senator Gun Nut Wants to Arm Pilots with Real Guns