Shouldn't our taxpayer-supported federal screeners be making the process easier instead of harder? At the very least, shouldn't the TSA try to do a better job of telling one group apart from the other?
Put differently, the entire display was for show. The TSA could have detonated grenades, set up an archery range, even set off a small nuclear weapon -- it would have been just as meaningful. Or meaningless.
No one has to work closer with these troubled federal screeners than commercial air carriers, so when it comes to the topic of much-needed improvement, you'd expect airlines to offer Congress an earful.
If you don't believe the TSA is doomed after watching Thursday's House Aviation Subcommittee hearing, then you'll have to at least agree that the agency as we know it can't continue to exist as it does.
When Susan Verbeeck attended a rally for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney with her two daughters and a friend at the Virginia State Fairgrounds in Doswell, Va., earlier this month, she didn't expect to be greeted by TSA agents.
After a preposterously positive TSA screening experience before my flight from Hilo, Hawaii, to Maui last week, I get it. I know why the agency assigned to protect America's transportation systems has a few fans -- and an apologist or two.
So what exactly can you get away with? A quick run-through through the TSA's Prohibited Items list hints at a surprising irony: Much of what is removed from carry-ons is perfectly legal if declared and packed in luggage that is checked and stowed.
Pope John Paul II once said that society can be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members. Last week, the TSA added insult to injury for its most vulnerable passengers. And it seems passengers have already judged them for it.
I've been getting a lot of action from the TSA lately. I went through JFK this past week. As usual, I requested not to go through the backscatter machines. And as usual, they tell me that since I mentioned it at all, they have to give me a "pat-down."