If nearly everyone hates the TSA, from both the left and the right, then how are they able to continue to exist and even expand their powers and influence over us? Is that really how a democracy is supposed to work? Most of the time you can blame one of our two idiotic political parties for the lack of any resolution, but in this rare instance it seems nearly everyone is agreement yet nothing is ever done about it. Kind of makes you wonder if we're actually having any influence on our government at all.
Where has it been said that "nearly everyone" wants to get rid of the TSA? Yes, plenty of people are irritated by the TSA (low-pay rent-a-cops), their ridiculous rules and regulations (3 ounces of a liquid are safe, but 4 ounces will bring down a plane), their security theater (don't worry about smiling for the camera, because our new x-ray vision can already see your teeth, not to mention your...well), etc.
However, the main problem is that our population has been sold this load of bull**** that says:
1) The more visible they make it, the more effective the security is
2) The only way to be visible is to be intrusive
3) The only way to solve prior failings (which often involved not following the existing rules) is to add more layers
4) Anyone who opposes spending gobzillions of dollars on this stuff just wants the terrorists to win
5) Anyone who really doesn't like dealing with the security theater can simply not fly (knowing full well that, with very few exceptions, not flying isn't really a practical alternative, unless you have the option of not going at all)
Yes, many of us who spend a lot of time thinking about it (that includes those that are into aviation, who have to deal with this annoyance on a regular basis, and those who are into rail, who are desperately hoping that said annoyance can stay the hell out of the passenger rail arena, as it's one of the advantages rail has over flying) realize that all this security theater is nonsense. But the average Joe doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about it. Average Joe likely takes it all at face value, and doesn't think about how much is being wasted by arriving at the airport 1-2 hours early, taking off his shoes, putting his three-ounce containers of liquids, lotions and gels into one one-ounce clear-plastic bag, etc. Hey, it's patriotic to follow those rules.
The typical person on the street doesn't think about the fact that a September 11-style hijacking really couldn't occur today for a few reasons that have nothing to do with security at the airport. First, if someone tries to hijack a plane in the US today, they're likely to have a good half the plane, at least, immediately come after them (and remember, the 9/11 hijackers didn't have guns or bombs, they had boxcutter knives). Second, cockpit doors have been reinforced, and new procedures put into place that control when the door can be opened (if you've sat at the front of a plane in the last few years, you'll notice what a big production it is just for one of the pilots to use the restroom now).
The most recent case that made headlines was the guy who stuffed explosives in his underwear last December. He should have never made it onto the plane, but for the fact that existing policies and procedures in place weren't followed.
However, despite all of that, the security theater expands for a couple of key reasons. First,
there's a bunch of money to be made in it. You know all those machines aren't free. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that the owners of the companies that make those machines spend a few dollars on lobbying and/or direct campaign donations. Second (and the most unfortunate fact of all, in my opinion), in politics, looking like you're doing something goes 100 times further than actually doing something.
