The reason I use words such as clear and obvious in this case might be more…erm…apparent if you got the regular updates from the TSA that I get through the US Embassy here. Take a look at this back-and-fill fest of a holiday travelers’ advisory (which I was moved to post about at the time). Take a look at the TSA website as a whole. One of the most prominent links is to a page called Am I wearing the right shoes? (Answer: No, honey–if you keep clomping around in those Birks, you’ll never find a good man to take care of you).

Now think about what’s missing: anything about how we ordinary travelers can protect ourselves if an emergency arises. If I’ve looked at the TSA website once in the last few years, I’ve looked at it a hundred times, and if there’s anything there beyond…

Be Vigilant… and report any suspicious person or package to local authorities or TSA personnel.

…I’ve yet to find it. There’s an airy leave-it-to-the-professionals tone and a strong sense that the TSA is hung up on the idea that every terrorist will operate like the Shoe Bomber. But experience says that passengers are most likely going to have to defend themselves if there’s an incident mid-air. Why not acknolwedge that and them a sense of where to secure children and the infirm, what cabin fittings can be used for improvised weapons or projectiles, and so on? Again, if any such information is buried on the TSA website, it’s eluded me beautifully.

See what I mean? The TSA seems to regard pre-boarding security screening as the be-all and end-all of passenger safety, but everyone at this late date knows it isn’t. And all the officious huffing and puffing about perfect adherence to procedure is undermined by the bad scores airport screeners get when inspected.

Huh? What’s the above title mean? I really don’t know, because I don’t understand Japanese. But hey, I guess I’ll just write a post about it anyway. Sean Kinsell (who wrote the above title) reminded me of something I know…

It’s incompetent because it’s clear to anyone with half a brain that the screeners are only being mindful of things they know they’ll either get chewed out for or lose their jobs over.

I suppose I must have been shorted half a brain, then, because it’s not “clear” to me (rhetorical devices such as “it’s clear” and “it’s perfectly obvious” [see below], by the way, are generally bright red flags that the person making the argument doesn’t have factual support to back his claim.) Do you really purport to know what these screeners are “mindful” of? I certainly wish I had that ability. Or perhaps you’ve spoken to TSA agents and so have information about what is running through their minds as their go about their work.

It’s perfectly obvious when you go through security that no one you encounter is being counted on to use individual initiative to identify possible threats.

Again, pure conjecture. It’s not “obvious” to me.

There’s clearly a list of shibboleths that everyone is brainwashed to look out for, so if you learn what they are, you just make sure you don’t violate them and affect the same expression as every innocent traveler who’s thinking, Damn–did I remember to take my Swiss Army knife out of my carry-on?

More rhetoric. I’m sure there is a “list” of some specific things TSA wants its employees to look out for. Why wouldn’t there be? But to move from that logical assumption to the broader claim that the TSA agents “only” look out for those and that if you “only” avoid violating that narrow list, you are as good as on the plane is simply not supported by fact. It’s also not the type of argumentation I would expect from you, Sean.

Right. It’s all, entirely, 100% predictable. In my experience of late, they just say, “I suggest you remove your shoes in order to speed your transit” or something else fake-highfalutin to indicate that it’s your choice whether you put your shoes through on the conveyor belt but it really isn’t, but the idea’s the same. Since the shoe bomber, you know your shoes will be checked.

Whenever I go home, I have my laptop and cell phone and things on me, so I have the rest of the routine down, too. I put my phone and iPod and keys and coin purse into my camera bag, I take my laptop out of its case, and if I’m wearing a belt with a sizable buckle, I put that in the bin that goes through the bag scanner, too. Nothing ever gets a look-see of any kind. As I say, it’s clear that if you put on the barest veneer of cooperating on the things that are very obviously going to cause problems, you’re not going to be bothered further. How much energy does it take terrorists with a learning curve to figure that out? The problem isn’t that the system is inherently polite or rude, it’s that anyone can figure out exactly what he needs to do to slide through without any hassle. That’s not the way to defeat terrorists.

It’s incompetent because it’s clear to anyone with half a brain that the screeners are only being mindful of things they know they’ll either get chewed out for or lose their jobs over. It’s perfectly obvious when you go through security that no one you encounter is being counted on to use individual initiative to identify possible threats. There’s clearly a list of shibboleths that everyone is brainwashed to look out for, so if you learn what they are, you just make sure you don’t violate them and affect the same expression as every innocent traveler who’s thinking, Damn–did I remember to take my Swiss Army knife out of my carry-on?

Noonan writes a fluent account of how uncomfortable and oppressive the post-9/11 airport system is (replete, even, with hyperbolic references to 1960′s East Germany and a “dictatorship of the clerks” dropped in for effect), but she does a palpably bad job of supporting her claim that the system is a failure. Why is it incompetent? Because she had a flight to get to in 45 minutes and security should have been sensitive to the fact that she would miss her plane unless they whisk her to the gate? She was the one late to the airport. And the guy who lost his lighter? That really is too bad, but remember that little problem with box cutters a number of years back? We probably didn’t think those could achieve much either, until…

I’m sorry that Noonan had such a bad day at the airport. That’s really too bad. But if it’s a choice between lots of Noonans having bad days and a couple more jets smashing into office buildings full of innocent people, I’ll choose the former–in a heartbeat.

I’ve been flying between Boston and San Fran every week for the past 18 months and have never had a problem with security. I mean, I don’t think they do any good and it’s all for show, but they are always nice to me.

I have however found they like biz travelers like me who know what to do (shoes off, watch off, laptop out of the bag, jacket off, put your cell phone in your carry on bag, etc.) Violate any of these rules and they become enraged.

John