Here's hoping more people realize not only what's going on, but also how important it is to sign their real names.

I guess they're afraid they'll be put on a watch list -- reasonable, given the police state we're living in and given how many people have been abused. Then again, our overlords did fuck up with the Crotch Bomber, even though he was on a list, and the Times Square Bomber, even though he was on a list, and the guys on 9/11, even though they were on a list . . . .

All this, for only $8.1 billion. What a bargain!

Still, sign your names, people.

I think the scariest thing is that there is so much inconsistency. Policies are being enforced differently in different places, which leaves tons of wiggle room for TSA abuses.

This anonymous post does not include the size of the cosmetics, shampoo bottles, etc that she was carrying on. However ridiculous the rule is, it's common knowledge that every bottle has to be 3 oz or less and has to fit in a quart-sized bag.

My best guess is that her quart-sized bag was packed too tightly. In the past, I've been asked to remove a few items from the bag because it's "bulging." That, to me, is extremely subjective. I mean, how much breathing room does your shampoo need? And how is this measured? Does the TSA just get to eye-ball it and say, "OK, the sunscreen is OK, but the conditioner is totally crowding your shampoo. Toss it."? Like I said, inconsistent policies are being enforced inconsistently.

What about this guy, who got away withh flying all over the freakin place using FAKE boarding passes??

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/boarding-pass-arrest-nigerian-slipped-jfk-airport-security/story?id=13963831

This right here is reason enough to disband the TSA right now! If people don't start screaming about this, I give up.

What's also scary is that the 2 Travel-Advisor columnists I regularly read (and who knows how many more?) came out with columns during the past week that basically were telling travelers to suck it up and stop complaining:
Chris Elliott in the Chicago Tribune -
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/orl-travel-troubleshooter-2-062111,0,753276.column

and

Rick Seaney of the company Fare-Compare who sends out newsletters advising of fare pricing -
http://www.farecompare.com/news/5-things-you-must-know-about-airport-security-and-outrageous-tsa-incidents/?utm_source=FareCompare_Newsletter&utm_campaign=2c7379433c-NL_062811_vac&utm_medium=email

Flynne, thanks for that; am passing it around.

N.J. Gill, I know Christopher Elliott -- he is a die-hard TSA opponent. He writes frequently about TSA abuse at his travel blog -- elliott.org -- and in fact does a regular weekly round-up of TSA abuse.

I haven't clicked over to that Chicago Trib column yet, but I'd be stunned if it showed him to be a TSA apologist. He might be relating what half (most?) of the country thinks, but I know what he thinks, and he thinks, as we do, that the TSA stinks.

P.S. I had tried to post a comment at Rick Seaney's place the other day, when that column appeared, and couldn't figure out how to do it.

Bruce Schneier at schneier.com is a security expert. He points out that the TSA is not interested in identity. They are checking only for things. This simplifies the bureaucratic mission, but of course is ridiculous when applied to grandmothers and 4 year-olds travelling with family.

Israeli security in contrast is interested in who you are and why you are travelling.

I've quoted Bruce Schneier -- and other security experts till I'm blue in the face. The sheeple don't want to hear it.

As for Israeli security, remember that though Israel has eliminated terrorism on planes, they've learned to accept it in other venues -- buses, cafes, marketplaces. Bombs still go off there. There is no such thing as 100% security, anywhere. The belief of so many Americans that there is is why they're willing to bend over and spread 'em every time an authority figure tells them to.

The Israelis also rely heavily on racial and ethnic profiling. If you're with an American tour group, for example, you'll be ushered quickly through. If you're the "wrong" racial or ethnic type, you'll get a thorough going-over. And if you're a peace activist -- forget it; you'll be strip-searched in a back room. Just ask Hedy Epstein.

Elections matter - at all levels.

I think brian nailed it best when he wrote how these organizations are now para military gov. forces; not to serve you, but the gov.

Dave B, elections don't matter anymore in my book. I've spent 53 years believing they did, but the current and just past administrations put the lie to that belief. Bush started the fear-mongering, civil-liberties-destroying bullshit known as the War on Terror, and Obama is continuing it. Not only continuing, but expanding.

And the cowardly Congress has endorsed it.

The whole bureaucratic boondoggle is abusive, and I don't see any end in sight. On the contrary. The only growing sector of the economy is the National Security State. And with so many people out of work, they'll take whatever jobs there they can find.

It doesn't matter who's elected in 2012 -- both major parties are corrupt, both do the bidding of the their benefactors, many of which are military companies that manufacture this "security" shite and have an abiding interest in keeping the sheeple in a state of fear.

Now everyone here knows I hate the TSA and it's procedures, but this: "At this point the airport police were called and I was totally hysterical."
Hysterics will NEVER help your cause. She wasn't being groped. It's was over some shampoo. WHo gets hysterical over shampoo?

momof4, you make a good point, and it may be that she's exaggerating. It also may be that several TSA agents surrounded her as they accused her of being a terrorist and hiding guns. After all, it was that turn of events and not the shampoo that made anonymousreader "hysterical." This has happened often enough to other innocent people that I believe her.

As for Israeli security....

If you think the TSA is huge and expensive now, just try to model it on Israeli security.

Israeli security has a 15-minute conversation with each passenger and does a quick psychological evaluation based on that.

Israel has 7 airports that handle 11 million passengers a year. The US has over 400 primary airports that handle roughly 700 million passengers annually.

In order for a TSA agent to do a psychological profile on all passengers (remember, he can't racially profile), he'll require more training and a higher level of education than is currently required. That translates to higher costs.

Imagine the cost of hiring enough highly-educated and trained agents to have over 700 million 15-minute conversations. Even if you interview only half the passengers, that's 350 million 15-minute interviews.

The TSA will soon be larger than the combined US military forces.

Now, throw in the unions with their compensation demands and work rules.

Additionally, let's consider risk. The risk of a terrorist attack on anything Israeli is high. The risk of a terrorist attack in an interstate flight in the US is comparatively lower (although as 9/11 proved, the consequences can be much deadlier).

Although a reactive approach that is clunky and mostly incompetent, the TSA is a cost-factored approach to the issue of potential terrorist strikes on airplanes in the US.

That said, the TSA needs a serious re-thinking.

=========================

As for searching old ladies and babies, if you're a terrorist and you know you'll be searched but your baby or grandma won't, wouldn't you hide your materials in their diaper?

When I lived in Florida, the FHP got into trouble for racially profiling young African-American men driving expensive cars north on I-95, often at high speeds.

Guess who the majority of drug couriers moving drugs out of Miami at that time were. Yep. So, the FHP looked for people that fit that profile.

I always wondered why the drug dealers didn't pay a bunch of old people under the table (supplementing their Social Security) to drive their drugs north.

Um. If you are on your period, you shouldn't fly. Or be around any other people.

"At this point the airport police were called and I was totally hysterical. I was handcuffed, given a 325 dollar ticket for disorderly conduct, and missed my flight-- all for questioning the inconsistent policy and total asinine behavior of the TSA. Oh and just for kicks, I might mention that I am a caucasian female with no criminal record and an extensive education. F*** you TSA!!! I vote Greyhound from here on out."

This person became hysterical (their own words) because some bottles of shampoo or body lotion would have to be tossed?

Jonah Goldberg is a small right-wing turd. I see what is going on.

It goes like this: There are not enough warmongers and rich people to vote the GOP into power. They need the dumb vote too, to get more than 50 percent.

But dumb people don't make much money. They are not so dumb as to vote for the GOP for nothing. So the GOP invents issues. Abortion, gay rights and the TSA raping little girls and old ladies.

The TSA is essentially unimportant. I fly frequently, and I fly overseas. It was more annoying several years back, getting bags through LAX. It is much better now. The scanners are too slow, but I don't care. It seems like a typical bureaucratic precaution against people trying to smuggle bombs on airplanes.

If you go the pat down route, BFD.

A real issue is the $3.7 trillion wasted on "Defense" and "Homeland Security" since 9/11. That's extra--above and beyond our ossified and lard-ridden Cold War military apparatus.

By you go girls--vote GOP on the TSA angle.

Dancing With Stars is on tonite! (Yes, I spelled tonite that way on purpose).

Conan, read up-thread. The Israelis do rely on ethnic and racial profiling.

And please don't pull out the "they might hide it in a diaper" canard. We've addressed that so many times on this blog. This isn't an episode of "24." It's real life. If you really think that's a credible threat, then you have no choice but to favor cavity searches, too.

The chance of being blown up a terrorist in this country is 1 in 10.5 million. You have a better chance of being hit by lightning (1 in 500,000). Of drowning in your bathtub.

Let's live like dignified human beings, please, not worms.

"This person became hysterical (their own words) because some bottles of shampoo or body lotion would have to be tossed?"

False. Read up-thread.

Also, BOTU, what the fuck does the GOP have to do with anything? I'm far left of what's considered liberal in this country. I'm not hoodwinked by the GOP -- or the Dems. Lemme guess -- you read that irresponsible Nation article about how the Koch Bros (whom I despise) cooked up this whole TSA opposition?

This isn't the first time someone has been bullied, harassed, or roughed up by the TSA for something as innocuous as shampoo. Unless you consider contact lens solution dangerous -- and worth giving someone a concussion over:

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2010/10/more-tsa-abuses-woman-beaten-71-year-old-man-16-year-old-girl-groped-stripped.html

Lisa, BOTU is a troll who posts idiotic comments designed to get a reaction. His usual targets are the GOP, the Department of Agriculture, rural dwellers, and the military. Ignore him.

Conan, read up-thread. The Israelis do rely on ethnic and racial profiling.

I did read up-thread and I know the Israelis use ethnic and racial profiling. The TSA, however, won't be allowed to rely on ethnic and racial profiling.

For one thing, Israel is nowhere near as ethnically and racially diverse as the United States.

For another, John Walker Lindh showed that not all jihadist Muslims in the US are Arabic.

Finally, US laws prohibit racial and ethnic profiling in law enforcement.

So, an Israeli-modeled US TSA would be having a lot of conversations.

The chance of being blown up a terrorist in this country is 1 in 10.5 million. You have a better chance of ... drowning in your bathtub.

I also covered the lower risk angle in my post.

You may have a better chance of drowning in your bathtub than being blow up by a terrorist, but when you drown in your bathtub, only you die. When terrorists explode bombs in public places, the casualty list is much longer.

You have a better chance of being killed on the highway than on a commercial airplane. But, people believe they have some control in a car, so they're less afraid of driving than of flying.

Hence the pressure for some sort of security apparatus at airports.

Is the TSA in its current configuration the right form of that security apparatus? No.

Personally, I think that the Flight 93 terrorists, the shoe bomber, and the underwear bomber (all of whom were taken down by passengers and/or flight crew) showed that other, less intrusive security measures would be more cost-effective.

And please don't pull out the "they might hide it in a diaper" canard. We've addressed that so many times on this blog. This isn't an episode of "24." It's real life. If you really think that's a credible threat, then you have no choice but to favor cavity searches, too.

Since I don't favor the TSA in its current configuration, I'm not going to come out in favor of cavity searches. Or of searching babies and grandmas.

But terrorists hiding their explosive materials in unsearched locations is hardly a canard. And it's not an episode of "24." It is real life.

We've already had a person hiding explosives in his own underwear (although, tests later showed the results of said explosion would have merely inconvenienced the flight).

The fact that there would be additional difficulties in hiding explosives in a baby's or grandma's diaper (they tend to pee in their diapers and foreign items in their diapers make them screamingly uncomfortable) does not preclude the possiblity of such a maneuver.

So, as ridiculous as the end results are, everyone is subject to a search.

Oh, no, I just discovered that a beloved friend of mine, partially paralyzed and unable to speak from a stroke two years ago, is going on a flight with his fiancee soon. I tried to get her reconsider. But she's been so busy caring for him non-stop that she honestly isn't aware of what's been going on at airports. I fear for them.

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2010/09/they-are-killing-david-rector.html

Lisa S-

Yes, it is unclear when the would-be passenger become "totally hysterical." These are her own words.

However, if you become "totally hysterical" at any point before boarding an airplane, do you really expect to be let on the plane? It is a confined area, with no exits (during flight).

Frankly, common sense dictates that a "totally hysterical" woman, or a big dramatic wailing sobber like Amy Alkon, should not be allowed into such a confined, exitless setting as an airplane for hours on end.

You want to sit next to a lulu for 3-12 hours? What if they go koo-koo and try to open the exit door? Stab people with a fork (they still give you forks and knives on some flights)? Yes, "No Nuts Allowed" is a good motto for air travel.

Really, what is this about? Why do airplanes provoke such strong emotional reactions? Why do terrorists target airplanes, but not busses, trains, office buildings of full baseball stadiums? (In the USA). Psychiatrists out there, any answers? Somebody must have studied this.

There is something about airplanes that brings out strong emotional reactions in many people.

I look forward to flights as a chance to catch up on reading (it is 18 hrs to SE Asia) and sometimes some pretty good food (Asiana airlines). I do not make a scene before boarding. That would be foolish, in my case.

That would also be rude, and impolite to TSA workers doing their jobs.

You want to stop scanners and pat-downs? Then write to your Congressperson. But leave those of us alone, who only want to get to our destinations.

You want to stop scanners and pat-downs? Then write to your Congressperson.

Nah, that won't work, BOTU. To wit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkmS6JrWSPU&feature=player_embedded

(Moxie posted this on her website. Best line EVER against Democrats, although lately it could be said about ALL politicians!)

Now, I've seen everything. I in partial agreement with BOTU. Only partial, but still.

Getting hysterical in the presence of people whose job it is to keep nutjobs off the airplane is self-identifying.

Likewise, publicly insulting someone who is already demeaned by his job of reaching into people's pants is not a way to ensure he doesn't schedule you for a strip search.

It's like getting pulled over for running a stop sign and screaming at the cop that he's a glorified meter maid and should be chasing "real criminals" instead. You're just begging the petty tyrant in him to come out and play.

And it won't change the things.

Instead, organize a letter-writing campaign to Congress and demand the law be changed. Publicly demonstrate. Write a letter to the editor or the airline. Start a petition drive. Start an anti-TSA blog. Mobilize public opinion.

If that doesn't work, try something more drastic. Immolate yourself at the airport. Strip search your neighbors whenever they come over. Subject your coworkers to a cavity search before allowing them to board the elevator.

Why do terrorists target airplanes, but not [buses], trains, office buildings [or] full baseball stadiums?

bin Laden's captured plans for additional terrorist attacks in the US targeted trains and buses.

One reason buses and trains are not first-choice targets is that buses and trains are ground-bound and can be reached by rescue and SWAT teams. Planes (despite what you see in the movies) effectively cannot.

Third World idiots who the terrorists are trying to impress aren't impressed by bus and train hijackings. They've been on a bus or a train. But a plane....

And planes can easily be moved long distances at random (theoretically out of reach of rescue).

[Speaking of being out of reach of rescue, this Monday marks the 35th anniversary of the Entebbe raid.]

Why do airplanes provoke such strong emotional reactions?

People don't like being stuck in an aluminum tube for hours on end with someone's seat back jammed in their face, no ability to walk around or step outside for a smoke, and no illusion of control or escape.

On a train or bus, we imagine we could escape in the event of an accident or grab the wheel and save ourselves. On a plane, we have no such illusions ... even though we're safer on a plane than we are in our own houses (why we all don't just move into planes is another question).

"The Israelis also rely heavily on racial and ethnic profiling."

Good move. They know their enemy.

"Why do terrorists target airplanes, but not busses, trains, office buildings of full baseball stadiums? (In the USA). Psychiatrists out there, any answers? Somebody must have studied this."

You just haven't been paying attention. I have.

There are two, and only two, explanations:

1) Another agency is stopping the enemy;
2) The enemy does not exist.

The avenue of attack is far larger than your few examples, as I have shown before with a simple citation. HERE is the Emergency Response Guidebook. That shippers move millions of tons of poisonous, flammable and explosive materials through towns just like yours is just plain fact.

The airplane is a target because of simple physics, and because the passengers are cowed by the simple fear of heights. Even people fond of flying forget that quickly if there is something wrong with the plane. There is no way a police sniper can kill the criminal in the air. Most of the passengers - actually, most Americans - have completely wrong ideas about how aircraft work. These can all be exploited.

There is no terrorist presence in the USA other than that funded by the US government. You can tell who they are. They wear uniforms, and get medals and praise for screwups like Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Scott case, and the shoe bomber (Napolitano chirps: "the system worked!").

"Obedient soldiers reference the rules, without thinking to question them and how absurd they are."

To everyone, but especially BOTU: The items taken from you by the TSA have been flying on planes for over 80 years. They are not the problem.

Mob thinking is.

What do you have to do to be an American?

Celebrate our not being the Commies - then defend the government here doing exactly what the Party required of the Soviets.

I'm sure I've mentioned it before but one of my favorite TSA experiences happened about three years ago. The local TSA goomba at the security line told me my passport had expired. I said no, it wasn't. Long story short, the idiot was looking at the "issue date" not the expiration date. To this day I still don't know for sure if he was that stupid or playing me (2-3 people in "security section" at the time). Back then I held in my anger. Today I'd likely openly call him an effing idiot.

TSA is all a joke.

Conan--

I think your post has a lot of merits. I guess it makes (perverted) sense to target airplanes.

People should keep in mind that the damage inflicted by terrorists is miniscule.

We lose 30,000 a year in auto accidents, and 18,000 to gunshot.

3,000 died in 9/11.

"The airplane is a target because of simple physics, and because the passengers are cowed by the simple fear of heights."

Also, until 9/11 it was considered a much better idea to just go along with the hijacker. He would want a trip to Cuba and once you got there the American government would get you home. When the 9/11 hijackers took over the airplanes, it was a completely new kind of attack that nobody else had the psychological framework to put together. When the passengers and remaining flight crew of FLight 93 realized that the rules had changed they took action. No one is going to sit passively anymore when somebody makes a run for the cockpit.

"We lose 30,000 a year in auto accidents, and 18,000 to gunshot. 3,000 died in 9/11."

This is a common practice, but it is always fallacious.

The risks and costs of one endeavor only apply to it, not to anything else. Apparent similarity might lead you to the fallacy, but, objectively, you are flatly wrong to do so.

You do not consider the number of bathtub deaths when leaping into the ocean after a child in distress. You do not compare highway fatalities with murder rates, either.

This is because they have unrelated causes.

This would become obvious if you cast away what I call "second-order apathy", and consider the countermeasures: what must you do to lower those costs?

"Instead, organize a letter-writing campaign to Congress and demand the law be changed. Publicly demonstrate. Write a letter to the editor or the airline. Start a petition drive. Start an anti-TSA blog. Mobilize public opinion."

Have done and continue to do all that. Since January 2010.

Chris Elliott's column passes along without comment this advice from Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association:

**********If you're on vacation, it's probably not worth it. That's the advice Osterreicher gives NPPA members, too: It's not worth a trip to jail. "Be courteous, be respectful and don't get into an argument," he says. "Should you have the time and want to push the issue, ask to speak to a supervisor or report the incident to that agency as soon as possible. Otherwise, they have a badge and you may lose the argument."

"Just say, 'Yes, officer, thank you, officer.' And walk away."*************

Lisa Simeone says: "N.J. Gill, I know Christopher Elliott -- he is a die-hard TSA opponent....
I haven't clicked over to that Chicago Trib column yet, but I'd be stunned if it showed him to be a TSA apologist."

Looks to me like he's endorsing sheep-like behavior

Pure speculation on my part here: She indicated that she'd flown into and out of Madison WI? This is Dane County Regional Airport. I've been there several times. It's a cute little thing. It's comprised of about a dozen gates, up from the four they had about fifteen years ago. The predominant clientele are good-natured Wisconsin Badgers (a steady diet of cheese curds and pot will do that to ya). These TSA goons were probably DESPERATE for some trouble, hence the overreaction.