The Looming Showdown for the TSA (Oh, and TSA: Have You Met ACORN?)

I fully understand that the TSA screens about a million and a half passengers a day, and does so with professionalism and courtesy. For the most part.

On the other hand, the TSA is carrying a lot of baggage, and it's my guess that the agency is headed for a showdown in Washington and in the states, as complaints about these infernal body patdowns pile up along with all the other public misgivings about the agency, which range from excessive costs (about $8 billion a year) and the routine arbitrary and capricious invocations of "laws" that may or may not even exist.

The agency especially needs to get its act together on the latter. For example, what is the law about a citizen making making video of TSA agents who, arguably, might be seen to be overstepping their boundaries?

Who says you can't film them? Where does it say so? What is the reason, if so? If you're so proud of your professionalism, as you may well be, what's your problem with having the public see you do your jobs?

In this video, which is getting around this morning on the Internet, a woman at the Phoenix airport is obviously upset at a TSA checkpoint where she has just been patted down.

O.K. -- watch the video. For most reasonable people, their first reaction is likely to be: Whoa, this lady is hysterical. She is overreacting. What the hell is wrong with her behaving like this?

But here's your real problem, TSA at Phoenix. Why didn't you just calm the lady down, deal with the problem -- and move on?

But nooooo. Instead, the TSA agents on the scene turn their attention to a man who seems to be the woman's adult son, who is using his cellphone or a camera to record the incident. For whatever reason. And I would not rule out the possibility that some people are deliberately creating, or at least exploiting, checkpoint incidents to aid and abet the growing public sentiment demanding that the TSA be replaced by private security firms hired by airports (TSA, have you met ACORN? They, too, starred on a guerrilla form of "Candid Camera").

The TSA agents fix on the man taking pictures and, true to form, begin acting like small-town cops. And speaking of small-town cops, along comes some hump who works for Southwest Airlines. Suddenly, he's Officer Krupke, but without the badge and the legal authority (and the chorus singing to him in "West Side Story")

As the distraught woman shrieks ridiculously, while standing as ordered at the patdown area, the following, instead, becomes the narrative we focus on:

Man with camera insists that TSA agents, and then the bossy Southwest Airlines guy, tell him what authority they have to order him not to record the scene. Here's some excerpted dialogue:

"Put the camera down!"

"It's against regulations!"

"Escort him out for noncompliance!"

"I don't have to show you the law. We're here to carry out the law!"

Man with camera: "It's a public area."

"You do not have my permission to film me!"

Man with camera: "Then walk away."

This goes on, making security look more and more silly, until what appears to be an actual police officer enters the picture. The police officer, as cops are trained to do, assesses the situation, evidently determines that there is no danger, and then tries to calm things down -- without threats. The cop, obviously, knows or at least supposes that there is no "law" against using a camera.

The cop behaves professionally. The TSA people who take it upon themselves to demand that the man put the camera down behave like security guards at the post-party of a Lady Gaga concert. The Southwest guy behaves even worse, given that he's just some airline hump.

This does not help, TSA. And Southwest: You are developing a reputation -- once those smiley faces disappear, it can become Guatemala on your turf, really fast.

The TSA needs to get its house in order here. What, specifically, is the law, or the rule you seek to enforce, about taking pictures? Where, specifically, do you assert that rule applies?

TSA rules are often haphazard. For example, you need to restrict carry-on liquids and gels to 3.4 ounce containers that fit into a one-quart zip bag. O.K., I get it, I get it. But then, there are exemptions, like for those with medical reasons and even "cosmetic" reasons -- including gel-filled bras and gel-filled cushions for your butt.

I'm not suggesting a crackdown on those with medical and/or cosmetic needs, but what's the rationale here -- aside from the need to assuage medical lobbying and various organized political interests? What makes sense here?

Speaking of political interests, as we all know, various state legislatures are proposing a crackdown against the TSA's hated patdowns, and in Texas a bill was introduced in the state house of representatives that would apply criminal law to TSA agents in cases where patdowns are deemed to constitute sexual groping.

The TSA scoffs at this, citing the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents states from contravening federal law. And also, let us never forget the sainted columnist Molly Ivins' observation that "every time the Texas Legislature is in session, some village is missing its idiot."

Nevertheless, there's a storm brewing on the TSA (whose boss, and his boss at Homeland Security, usually travel by private jets, which allows them to avoid the TSA, like all private jet passengers). I hope the agency gets a handle on it with something other than blandishments from "Blogger Bob" on its Web site.

This morning, the House Transportation Committee Chairman John L. Mica will release an investigative report that, the committee says (with a disturbing neglect of basic grammar) "discloses the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ignores skyrocketing passenger screening costs in all-federal screening model, and dismisses benefits of the model utilizing private contact screeners."

Grammar aside, read that as a further movement to support privatization of airport security.

The committee's press release adds, "This report will refute the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA’s) prior claims that screening under the private-federal model is more costly than the all-federal model.

"In creating the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) after September 11, I2001, Congress provided in law the option for airports to 'opt out' and use private security screeners under TSA standards, supervision and oversight as an alternative to all-federal screening. Earlier this year, TSA pulled the plug on allowing more airports to opt out, citing cost concerns."

Mica will again call for the TSA to be required to allow airports to opt out and hire ... rent-a-cops. You know, like the ones who were on duty in Boston on September 11, 2001.

###

I Hate to Say It, But Drudge Is Right ...

For over a year now, that pitiful scoundrel Drudge had been watching his once-remarkable influence wane on his Web site, which is nothing more than a collection of links to other people's work. But those links are carefully chosen -- curated, you might say, to present a picture of the world from the right-wing reactionary, faux-populism perspective.

I've always thought that Drudge was basically a very smart wire editor who could have worked for some crazed modern online manifestation of the old New York Mirror. That is said with some admiration.

Anyway, Drudge came back big-time this month, as he drove the furor on the TSA with deftly chosen links and the usual attention-getting headlines.

And he's right today, highlighting reactions to the amazingly quick cave by the media, which has abruptly changed narrative on this story because one element of it, the much-hyped "National Opt-Out Day" protest, failed to materialize at the airports on the day before Thanksgiving. (Politico's Ben Smith also makes the point about the Drudge effect on what Smith calls, I think correctly, as the "weekend collapse" of the TSA's new screening policies.

Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind, to allude to the classic 1936 New Yorker parody of the old Time Magazine by Wolcott Gibbs.

Unseen in the current media rewrite of the narrative (ahem) is the fact that Thanksgiving air travel was down to the extent that the TSA itself said it closed checkpoint lanes at airports. The TSA didn't say this, but anecdotal reports from travelers all over the country say that in many airports, the body-scanner lanes were the ones closed.

Other anecdotal reports say that TSA screeners over the Thanksgiving holiday travel period were friendly, courteous, kind, cheerful and helpful, manifesting at least some elements of the Boy Scout Code, and most of the important ones at that. The great TSA patdown grope-fest that had horrified travelers in the weeks before Thanksgiving seemed to be in recess, as well.

One strong indication to me showing how this narrative was deliberately changed over the weekend is the way media reports dismissing the TSA furor now routinely mention old polls showing majority acceptance of the new TSA procedures, while ignoring new polls in the middle of last week that showed exactly the opposite.

We'll see how this plays out. The new Accepted Narrative includes a theme that says this reaction has been solely driven by right-wing media, which is nuts, and I could show you a couple of thousand e-mails to prove it.

But maybe there is a new environment at the checkpoints. The inappropriate patdowns, far more than the body-scan machines themselves, drove the fury. And I do give great credit to a brilliant PR campaign by the TSA (and again, this is said with some admiration).

And hey, whatever works.

[Meanwhile, the always compelling Mike Boyd has some hard-nosed things to say in his weekly essay today about the media and the sorry record of the TSA. Airport security, he says, "has been a pirate's chest of heavy gelt" for many who make dough off it.]

###

More Travelers Looking to Avoid Flying; Almost Two-Thirds Oppose New TSA Measures, Zogby Poll Finds

Reacting against the current program of body-imaging scans and aggressive body pat-downs at airports, 48 percent of Americans, and 42 percent of frequent fliers, say they will choose an alternative to air travel whenever possible, according to a new poll by Zogby International.

Overall, 61 percent of 2,032 likely voters polled from Nov. 19 to Nov. 22 oppose the use of full body scans and the current form of TSA pat downs. Republicans (69 percent) and Independents (65 percent) oppose in greater numbers than Democrats (50 percent).

Of those polled, 52 percent believe the new, so-called enhanced security measures will not prevent terrorist activity; almost half (48 percent) say they are a violation of privacy rights; 33 percent say they should not have to go through enhanced security methods to get on an airplane, and 32 percent believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs to be sexual harassment. This is in line with frequent fliers (fly more than once every 3 months), as 53 percent say the enhanced measures will not prevent terrorist activity, 48 percent believe it's a violation of their privacy rights, 41 percent say they should not have to go through it to get on an airplane, and 35 percent believe it is sexual harassment.

While roughly the same amount believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs are necessary to keep the country safe and prevent terrorist activities on airplanes (34 percent of frequent fliers vs. 29 percent overall), frequent fliers are more likely to feel that the enhanced methods are not needed because metal detectors and bag screenings are working fine (33 percent to 26 percent). Just 16 percent of frequent fliers say no one has an absolute right to fly and if people don't like the security measures, then just don't fly compared to 20 percent of everyone polled.

The Zogby poll also found that when given a choice, likely voters will choose full body scan over the TSA pat downs (48 percent to 7 percent), but 42 percent would rather have neither. Frequent fliers feel about the same.

Said pollster John Zogby: "It's clear the majority of Americans are not happy with TSA and the enhanced security measures recently enacted. The airlines should not be happy with 42 percent of frequent fliers seeking a different mode of transportation due to these enhancements. It seems the airlines and TSA need to come together to find a solution before the American flying public abandons both."

Meanwhile, the busiest travel peak of the year starts tomorrow -- and as if we don't already have enough hassle in air travel, the weather is turning very bad in big sections of the country.

###