"No security agency on earth has the experience and pattern-recognition skills of TSA officers"
really? having watched three TSA officers debate for five minutes over whether or not peanut butter was a liquid and concluding that "well, peanut butter goes on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and we don't allow petroleum jelly through, so we don't allow peanut butter through either", I really am skeptical of this claim...
The guy was sounding really credible and forthcoming until he made that claim.
Although, if you read his claim with the right squint, maybe it's true: No security agency on earth is as bad as the TSA.
And if they really are good, and unfairly painted, then they've got some serious "evidence of outstanding work" type of reputation building to do. They have their reputation for a reason.
On reflection, as head of the TSA, I suspect that any time he visited an airport he worked with the best agents at each location, as local managers worked to impress when a higher-up came in.
He got to regularly see the best. We get to see the average, and the blogosphere highlights the worst.
He used to be the head of the TSA…at least he is being more realistic than we'd expect someone from the agency to be. He likely needs to balance expressing his opinions with not offending people at the TSA he is still connected with.
Yeah that's really the killer line...last time I flew I remember seeing a large poster advertising TSA jobs and it said in big bold letters "College Degree Not Required!"
As someone who does not have a college degree and full acknowledges you can be super smart without one...I was kind of bummed that the TSA so openly acknowledges that their market for job recruitment responds well to "College Degree Not Required!"
Actually, I see this as a great illustration of how a college degree can often be superfluous. The skills of a TSA baggage screener can be learned in a matter of weeks. What good is four years spent reading Kant and exploring your bisexuality?
This seems somewhat irrelevant? I know we're always supposed to be "supporting the troops", but I think you're suggesting we should be supporting professions that they may later go into?
Wow, are US vets that tweaked? I mean, just say a bad thing about them and they will kill you, with out remorse? Blimey, sounds a bit worrying to me. You make them sound like a bunch of well armed psychos living on a hair trigger. Such people roam free in the US? Sounds terrifying.
Or are you doing them a bit of a disservice there?
That's a terrible cop-out argument. If they're actually skilled - say so. If the bulk of the workforce isn't? Then saying so only hurts fixing the problem.
If they're so unstable that being told they're not good at their job sends them in to a killing rage, they shouldn't have that job.
Off topic, I heard (from a former US military person), that they have a distinction between the terms "ex-military" (kicked out) and "former military" (left voluntarily), and saying "former military" is a nicer thing to them, and that they'll pick up that you're aware of the difference. Any military people able to confirm/deny?
really? having watched three TSA officers debate for five minutes over whether or not peanut butter was a liquid and concluding that "well, peanut butter goes on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and we don't allow petroleum jelly through, so we don't allow peanut butter through either", I really am skeptical of this claim...